GIFT  OF 


.* 


At*        I  • 

Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 


BY 


Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


"As  quaint  old  Sir  Thomas  Browne  happily  pats  it:  'Time  which 
antiquates  antiquities  and  hath  an  art  to  make  dust  of  all  things,  hath 
yet  spared  these  minor  monuments,'  and  I  am  heartily  glad  of  it." 


" 


1907 


TRENTON,  N.  T. 
MACCRILLISH  &  QUIGLEY,  PRINTERS. 

1907 


Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 


BY 

Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


"As  quaint  old  Sir  Thomas  Browne  happily  puts  it:  'Time  which 
antiquates  antiquities  and  hath  aa  art  to  make  dust  of  all  things,  hath 
yet  spared  these  minor  monuments,'  and  I  am  heartily  glad  of  it." 


1907 


TRENTON,  N.  J. 
MACCREUJSH  &  QUIGLEY,  PRINTERS. 

1907 


PREFACE. 


BECAUSE  two  relics  of  the  one-time  occupant  of  the  open 
plain  or  the  pathless  forest  are  found  during  the  same 
day,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  two  objects  were  once 
in  the  possession  of  the  same  individual  or  that  they  were 
fashioned  at  practically  the  same  time;  yet,  based  upon  such 
an  absurd  assumption  is  the  view  so  strenuously  insisted 
upon  by  the  coterie  which,  after  a  most  superficial  glance  at 
the  territory  in  question  (the  tide-water  area  of  the  valley 
of  the  Delaware),  finds  itself  limited  to  denying  the  dis 
coveries  of  others  who  have  borne  the  heat  and  burden  of 
the  day  in  actual  exploration. 

It  is  scarcely  complimentary  to  the  average  intelligence 
that  those  who  testify  in  the  role  of  experts  should  offer 
negative  evidence  as  of  greater  value  than  that  which  is 
positive.  Unsuccessful  themselves  in  the  finding  of  arti 
facts  in  place,  after  careful  search — not  only  the  asserted 
search,  but  the  care  attending  it,  problematical — they  would 
feign  blot  out  of  existence,  by  a  toss  of  the  head  or  scratch 
of  the  pen,  all  evidence  of  man's  antiquity.  Success  has 
attended  these  unscrupulous  efforts  far  more  generally  than 
should  have  been  the  case,  or  would  have  been,  had  the  sub 
ject  been  treated  honestly,  as  questions  purely  geological  or 
historical  are  supposed  to  be. 

Possibly  the  most  glaring  instance  of  this  disingenuous 
treatment  of  the  subject  was  based  on  the  absolutely  im 
possible  examination  of  sewer  trenches  in  the  streets  of 
Trenton,  N.  J.,  during  the  progress  of  their  excavation.  It 
admirably  illustrates  my  contention.  With  a  gratuitous 


234525 


diagram  to  make  it  the  more  delusive,  the  statement  was 
made  (Geol.  Jour.,  I,  1893,  pp.  15-37)  that  on  the  present 
immediate  shore  of  the  river  rudely  chipped  argillite  im 
plements  were  found  in  abundance,  but  that  there  occurred 
no  trace  of  such  objects  in  the  gravel  at  any  significant  dis 
tance  from  the  river.  In  other  words,  that  no  such  objects 
are  ever  brought  to  light  when  digging  cellars,  sinking  wells, 
excavating  for  sewers  or  water  mains,  or  any  other  deep 
removal  of  masses  of  earth.  This  is  an  absolutely  erroneous 
statement  as  to  the  actual  conditions,  and  reprehensibly  so, 
because  based  on  what  should  have  been  realized  as  insuffi 
cient  knowledge  of  the  region.  The  author  heads  the  paper 
above  referred  to  with  the  question :  Are  there  traces  of 
Glacial  Man  in  the  Trenton  Gravels?  Little  wonder  that 
he  replies  negatively  to  his  own  question.  Negative  evidence 
was  his  sole  quest. 

No  speculation  as  to  his  own  origin  by  palaeolithic  man 
could  have  been  more  wild,  illusory,  and  often  insanely  gro 
tesque  than  these  frantic  efforts  o<f  modern  archaeologists  to 
blot  from  history's  page  the  existence  of  men  whose  man 
hood  was  yet  as  an  unfolded  bud.  And  the  more  strange, 
too,  because  theoretically  man  ought  to  be  as  old  here  as  the 
so-called  Trenton  Gravels,  Antiquity  is  called  for  when  we 
survey  the  field  as  a  whole.  The  study  of  aboriginal  lan 
guages  demands  the  lapse  of  many  centuries.  Yet,  when 
special  evidence  of  such  antiquity  is  offered,  the  archaeologist 
becomes  suddenly  afraid  o<f  his  own  shadow  and  thinks  the 
holding  aloof  for  additional  and  yet  more  strongly  con 
firmatory  evidence  is  sanely  valorous.  Such  attitude  per 
manently  holds  back  the  truth. 

When,  by  means  of  a  spade,  we  explore  the  ground  be 
neath  our  feet,  after  having  previously  carefully  examined 
its  surface,  we  are  confronted  by  a  condition,  which  seems  to 
be  one  of  positive  character,  and  yet  it  is  as  illusory,  often, 


in  reality,  as  it  is  unquestionable  in  appearance.  So  many 
possibilities  are  there  clustering  about  the  inhumation  of 
objects  that  it  is  rash  indeed  to  measure  antiquity  by  the 
depth  at  which  any  artifact  may  occur.  Just  as  a  warm  clay 
in  January  does  not  mean  that  June  wrill  be  ushered  in  to 
morrow,  so  an  implement  made  and  used  by  an  Indian,  so 
recently  as  when  a  neighbor  of  the  white  man,  may  occur  at 
a  depth  that  startles  the  discoverer.  May  startle,  but  should 
not,  for  the  whole  range  of  possibility  is  to  be  considered. 
Certainly  no  hole  was  ever  dug  and  re-filled  without  abun 
dant  evidence  o*f  the  fact.  A  tree  torn  by  the  roots  from  the 
ground,  as  in  a  notable  tornado  that  leveled  an  orchard, 
leaves  a  deep  hole  in  the  ground.  Springs  that  trickle 
patiently  far  beneath  our  feet  wear  away  the  soil  until  a 
blind  cavern  is  formed,  and  then  occurs  a  great  slumping 
in  the  field,  and  the  one-time  level  ground  becomes  the  sides 
of  a  ravine.  Intense  cold  has  cracked  the  earth  wide  enough 
and  these  fissures  have  remained  open  long  enough  for  an 
object  as  large  as  the  ordinary  arrow-point  to  drop  from  a 
few  inches  beneath  the  surface  to  a  depth  of  six  or  seven 
feet.  A  trifling  brook,  that  has  rippled  over  the  surface  for 
centuries,  may  be  turned  aside  and  forced  to  flow  in  quite 
another  direction,  and  the  old  course  be  so  completly  cov 
ered  up  that  when  discovered  it  has  all  the  appearance  oi  a 
relic  of  another  geological  era.  The  deep  burrowing  of 
many  a  mammal  may  be  the  cause  of  a  recent  relic's  deep 
burial,  and  a  cloud-burst,  flooding  a  sandy  area,  may  wash 
from  gravel,  where  it  had  been  an  integral  part  of  the  de 
posit,  a  rude  artifact  and  leave  it  upon  the  new-made  sur 
face,  exposed  to  frost  and  heat  for  the  first  time  in  many 
centuries.  I  have  witnessed  all  these  things.  I  have  been 
confounded  many  times.  I  have  learned  to  be  cautious. 

Still,  notwithstanding  the  confusion   that  confronts  the 
student  of  the  earth's  immediate  surface,  there  are  yet  re- 


6 

maining  evidences  of  comparative  fixity,  and  we  can,  through, 
them,  determine  the  major  and  widespread  changes,  dis 
tinguishing  such  from  the  minor  and  purely  local  ones. 
Were  it  not  so,  we  might  well  despair  of  reaching  to  any 
conclusion  concerning,  approximately,  the  earliest  appear 
ance  of  man. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  geology  is  not,  as  yet,  more  of 
an  exact  science,  and  not  until  it  ranks  with  astronomy  and 
mathematics  will  it  be  able  to  set  permanently  at  rest  many 
of  the  petty  doubts  that  vex  the  archaeologist.  It  is  true 
that  when  treating  of-  Laurentian  rock,  coal  deposits  or  beds 
of  cretaceous  marl,  the  terms  used  are  dependable,  for 
there  is  no  possibilty  of  a  human  skull  appearing  and  grin 
ning  a  contradiction,  but  when  we  near  the  present  and  dig 
in,  but  not  beneath  the  "pleistocene/'  ''quaternary,"  "glacial" 
or  "recent,"  or  whatever  term  may  be  applicable  to  some  par 
ticular  point,  then  it  is,  that  if  gathered  here,  an  association 
of  geologists  are  scattered,  like  startled  sheep,  if  asked  the 
simplest  question.  An  archaeologist  must  be  his  own  inter 
preter  of  geological  conditions.  If  not  equal  to  this,  he  is  a 
mere  collector  of  relics,  and  whatever  the  value  of  his  speci 
mens,  his  opinion  is  little  worth. 

Probably  no  river  in  the  United  States  presents  as  im 
portant  and  comprehensive  a  series  ot  archaeological  hori 
zons  as  does  the  Delaware,  from  a  short  distance  above  its 
tidal  flow  to  its  final  merging  with  the  sea.  The  reason  is 
obvious.  The  terminal  moraine  is  but  about  fifty  miles 
away.  From  it  is  derived  the  strata  of  post-glacial  de 
posits  of  sand  and  gravel  that  form  so  marked  a  feature  of 
the  valley  southward  of  the  extension  of  the  ice-sheet.  The 
immediate  surroundings,  prior  and  during  glacial  activity, 
now  and  then  at  a  significant  elevation  above  the  flood-line, 
were  heavily  forested  and  inhabited  by  an  extensive  and 


varied  fauna,  and  not  a  condition  is  discoverable  inimicable 
to  the  highest  interests  of  primitive  man ;  but  did  he  dwell 
here  at  that  time?  Did  he  know,  in  this  region,  the  reindeer, 
the  moose,  musk-ox  and  mastodon  ?  Did  the  walrus  gambol 
in  the  Delaware's  icy  waters?  Ay,  there's  the  rub! 

All  that  which  has  been  set  forth  as  evidence  has  been 
contemptuously  set  aside  as  having  any  archaeological  sig 
nificance.  If  objects  found  suggestively  deep  were  offered 
that  were  unquestionably  artifacts,  then  they  were  intrusive 
objects,  or,  if  the  conditions  forbade  intrusion,  then  the  arti 
ficiality  could  not  be  demonstrated,  and  the  sweeping  con 
clusion  of  these  modernists  was,  and  is,  that  referring  all 
artificiality  to  the  historic  Indian,  the  purposes  of  archaeo 
logical  research  are  accomplished. 

Whatever  their  entire  significance  may  ultimately  prove 
to  be,  the  fact  remains  that  large  rudely  chipped  but  dis 
tinctly  fashioned  implements  of  metamorphosed  slate— 
argillite — which  are  indistinguishable  in  pattern  from  Euro 
pean  palaeolithic  implements,  have  frequently  been  found  in 
deposits  of  gravel,  the  history  of  which  is  unmistakably  that 
of  the  closing  activities  of  the  glacial  period,  and  so  far  as 
they  were  concerned,  there  was  no  evidence  of  such  artifacts 
having  become  inhumed  subsequent  to  the  deposition  of  the 
containing  bed. 

A  distinction  should  ever  be  drawn  between  the  expression 
of  an  opinion  and  the  statement  of  a  fact,  but  such  distinc 
tion  seems  generally  to*  be  lost  sight  of  when  treating  of  the 
archaeology  of  the  Delaware  valley ;  by  those,  at  least,  who 
deny  the  glacial  phase  of  such  archaeology.  Possibly  ex 
treme  timidity  may  be  the  explanation  of  this  unfortunate 
state  of  affairs,  but  far  more  probable  is  it  that  a  cultivated 
strabismus  reverses  the  order,  and  placing  the  gravel  on  the 
surface  and  the  soil  beneath,  necessarily  makes  the  older 
appear  the  more  recent.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  is  certainly 


8 

more  confusion  of  impression  than  infusion  of  fact  in  the 
archaeological  references  we  find  in  scientific  journals,  gov 
ernment  reports  and  the  homelier  State  reports  concerning1 
our  surface  geology. 

Lf  we  are  to  accept  the  dicta  of  the  many  who  have  dilated 
on  the  subject,  it  would  appear  that  whatsoever  we  must 
ascribe  to>  man,  be  it  bone  or  artifact,  if  found  in  the  earth, 
is  to  be  held  as  an  intrusive  object  and  really  belonging  on 
the  earth. 

As  it  happens,  fossils  old  as  and  older  than  the  tertiary 
beds  are  found  upon  the  surface.  Do  they  belong  there? 

The  geologists  can  readily  tell  you  why  they  do  not. 

Let  a  theoretically  ancient  trace  of  man  be  found  where 
floods  have  washed  the  surface  of  a  field  and  the  geologist's 
insistence  is  that,  being  of  human  origin,  it  never  was  else 
where  than  on  the  present  surface ;  that  it  could  be  brought 
from  beneath  after  an  aeon  of  burial  is  preposterous. 

Happily  for  those  interested,  in  the  final  acquisition  of 
the  truth  as  to  man's  career  in  America,  the  geologist  is  yet 
to  be  born,  with  vision  so  penetrative  and  glance  so  terrible 
that  doubt  will  flee  at  his  approach. 

The  geologist  cannot  so  readily  explain  the  artifact. 

His  decisive  manner,  in  the  one  case,  is  changed  to  sad 
uncertainty  in  the  other.  His  yea  was  yea,  and  nay,  nay, 
when  discoursing  of  a  shell,  but  now,  confronted  by  an 
artifact  or  human  bone,  we  are  treated  to  endless  poly 
syllabic  circumlocution. 

Ignoring,  then,  the  literature  of  the  subject,  which  bears 
no  more  important  relation  to  the  river  valley  than  the 
clouds  of  dust  and  smoke  that  continually  traverse  its  length, 
I  returned,  some  years  ago  (November  20,  1901),  to  the 
rocks  and  accumulated  material  that  fills  the  spaces  between 
them  and  sought  again  to  have  them  tell  their  own  story  of 
the  past.  Now,  at  the  conclusion  of  my  labors,  I  do  not 


find  that  it  differs  materially  from  that  which  I  suggested 
was  such  history,  thirty-five  years  ago. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  include  in  these  prefatorial 
remarks  passing  reference  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  interests 
of  several  museums,  a  most  competent,  careful  and  tireless 
explorer  has  for  many  years  been  at  work  in  the  same 
locality  that  has  been  for  so  long  the  scene  of  my  own  labors. 
His  purpose,  as  set  forth  by  the  directors  of  the  several 
museums,  was  primarily  to  demonstrate  the  untenability  of 
the  position  I  have  maintained  concerning  man's  antiquity 
here,  since  1872  (American  Naturalist,  Vol.  VI,  March, 
1872.  ''The  Stone  Age  in  New  Jersey.").  The  results  of 
Mr.  Volk  have  been  confirmatory  in  many  ways,  and  he  is 
fully  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  my  views.  Unfortu 
nately,  there  is  no  likelihood  of  his  voluminous  reports  being 
published. 

Happily,  the  river  itself  rolls  on  in  its  quiet,  summery 
way,  or  rushes  its  winter's  accumulation  of  ice  impetuously 
toward  the  sea,  unmindful  of  the  strange  stories  told  of  it. 
This  is  fortunate,  for  in  the  telling  of  its  own  story  wre  have 
glimpses  of  past  history  brought  to  light,  easy  enough  to 
recognize  as  such,  if  we  have  the  inclination  to  do  so.  The 
river  speaks  in  no  unkiiO'Wn  tongue ;  she  offers  no  hiero 
glyphics  over  which  we  are  required  to  puzzle.  All  is  plain 
as  day  to  those  who  choose  to  seek  the  truth  for  themselves 
and  avoid  as  the}-  would  a  pestilence  all  theorists  and  the 
carping  critic. 

Whether  or  not  a  wise  caution,  whether,  on  any  grounds, 
worthy  or  not  of  defense,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss,  but 
the  indisputable  fact  stands  that  man  is  usually — we  might, 
perhaps,  say  invariably — averse  to  studying  his  own,  or  a 
species  allied  to  himself,  precisely  as  he  would  another  or  all 
mammals.  This,  since  the  dawn  of  learning,  has  been  the 


10 

inclination,  albeit  without  warrant,  of  every  student,  to  con 
sider  himself  and  all  of  his  genus,  if  not  his  species,  sub 
species  or  race,  as  absolutely  without  the  bounds  of  those 
accepted  methods  of  investigation  that  apply  to  the  inferior 
forms  of  life,  or,  in  other  words,  that  man  is  not  amenable 
to  Nature,  but  to  himself  and  the  Supernatural.  So  long 
as  this  disposition  prevails  in  anthropological  studies,  so 
long  will  confusion  enveil  the  object  studied  and  the  pro 
gress  of  knowledge  be  retarded. 

In  the  following  pages  I  am  concerned  only  with  that 
people  which  held  in  their  possession  the  valley  of  the  Dela 
ware  river  prior  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Whether  they 
were  here  by  right  of  conquest,  or  peaceful  occupation,  or 
direct  descendants  of  a  less  cultured  folk  of  a  preceding 
geological  period,  probably  cannot  be  determined  without 
some  lingering  shadow  of  a  doubt,  but  this  point  is  not 
so  important  as  an  historian  might  deem,  for  whether  the 
sequence  of  event  that  I  hope  to  demonstrate  is  that  of  gen 
eration  following  generation,  or  the  elimination  of  one 
people  and  succession  of  another,  is  of  little  moment. 

The  point  is,  there  \vas  a  day  when  never  a  human  foot 
had  pressed  the  turf  of  this  river  valley,  and  the  day  dawned 
when  the  valley  lay  before  man,  with  its  sparkling  waters 
flowing  through  miles  of  up-lifted  rock  and  then  idly  spread 
ing  over  sandy  plains  until  lost,  at  last,  in  the  insatiable  sea. 

What  \vas  the  career  of  this  initial  irruption  of  manhood 
in  the  valley  ?  It  seems  at  first  glance  that  the  improbability 
of  ever  knowing  is  equal  to  or  greater  than  our  desire  to 
possess  the  facts.  But  effort,  if  rightly  directed,  is  a  solv 
ent  of  many  difficulties  that,  idly  regarded,  appear  impreg 
nable.  In  this  instance  the  right  direction,  as  I  regard  it, 
is  in  studying  the  historic  Indian  and  his  ancestors  or  pre 
decessors,  as  the  case  may  be,  as  a  feature  of  the  region's 
fauna,  along  with  the  deer,  beaver  and  opossum  and  noth- 


II 

ing  more.  In  this  light  his  relics  are  of  historic  value,  in 
part,  and  others  more  of  .the  nature  of  true  fossils.  So  doing, 
we  encounter  fewest  difficulties  and  the  facts  we  gather  are 
intelligible  and  satisfy  all  our  longings  for  knowledge  of  the 
past.  But  once  we  associate  the  Indian  with  other  peoples 
and  grouping  all  as  something  other  than  a  phase  of  mam 
malian  life,  that  moment  theory  becomes  rampant  and  dire 
confusion  follows. 

There  appears  to  have  always  been  a  certain  miscon 
ception  on  the  part  of  geologists  who  have  taken  up  this 
question,  in  that  they  held  that  the  age  of  any  deposit 
wherein  an  artifact  may  occur  is  the  crowning  point  of  the 
whole  controversy.  It  is  really  not  a  matter  of  the  slightest 
importance,  and  the  wrangling  of  experts  and  savans  sim 
ply  stands  for  so  much  energy  wasted.  The  aim  has  been 
on  my  part,  and  I  believe  I  started  the  ball  to  rolling,  is 
to  demonstrate  a  certain  sequence  of  event,  as  already  speci 
fied.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  moment  whether  this  started 
in  pre-glacial,  glacial  or  post-glacial  time.  Did  it  start  at 
all? 

Accepting  the  proposition  that  it  did,  the  question  of 
probability  arises  as  to  whether  the  appearance  of  man  in 
America  was  likely  to  have  been  at  so  late  a  date  as  post 
glacial.  There  would  be  no  physical  barrier  to  man  en 
tering  the  continent  during  glacial  times,  if  its  shores  were 
reached  south  of  the  area  affected  by  the  ice,  and  certainly  it 
is  within  the  bounds  of  possibility.  We  know  as  yet  too 
little  of  South  and  Central  America  and  the  West  Indies 
to  assert  that  nothing  can  be  expected  of  that  region  and 
that  the  northern  region,  Behring's  strait  and  adjacent  terri 
tory,  was  the  sole  scene  of  the  initial  immigration. 

Surveying  the  entire  outlook  and  seeing,  as  I  claim  I  do 
see,  the  three  horizons  of  palaeolithic,  pre-Indian  and  In 
dian,  here  in  New  Jersey,  I  incline  to  the  view  of  pre-glacial 


12 

occupancy  of  the  country,  but  if  this  is  demonstrated  to  have 
been  impossible,  it  by  no  means  affects  the  question  as  to 
that  sequence  of  event  for  which  I  have  contended. 

The  material  upon  which  the  following  report  is  based 
consists  of  the  author's  personally-collected  specimens,  now 
in  museum  of  Princeton  University,  and  grateful  acknowl 
edgment  is  here  made  of  the  pecuniary  assistance,  so  gen 
erously  provided  by  Messrs.  M.  Taylor  Pyne  and  Junius  S. 
Morgan,  of  Princeton,  without  which  the  collections  could 
not  have  been  made  and  this  report  thereon  published. 

C.  C.  A. 

THREE  BEECHES,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  Feb.  18,  1907. 


ARCBT^EOLOGIA 

NOVA 
C^ESAREA 


IMPLEMENTS  AND  ARTIFACTS. 

A  SERIOUS  difficulty  confronts  us  when  we  attempt  to  place 
a  proper  value  on  the  term  "primitive,"  as  applied  to 
mankind  at  the  outset  of  his  career,  or  that  period  when  the 
influence  of  pithecoidal  propensities  was  almost  lost.  Cer 
tainly  this  far-off  day  in  human  history  ante-dates  man's 
appearance  on  the  North  American  continent,  judged  by 
the  traces  of  his  presence  as  yet  discovered.  Still,  the  ad 
vance  toward  what  is  now  recognized  as  humanity  was  not 
strongly  marked.  Mentality  had  not  the  animal  under  ab 
solute  control.  The  animal  was  not  yet  convinced  that  in 
tellectuality  was  altogether  and  under  all  circumstances 
wholly  desirable.  There  was  constant  struggle,  while  ape 
like  chatterings  were  giving  way  to  mumblings  and  cries 
that  were  scarcely  more  suggestive  and  intelligible. 

A  marked  feature  of  advance  was  not  so  much  the  use  of 
natural  objects  for  defense  and  other  purposes,  for  monkeys 
know  the  value  of  a  weapon,  as  when  a  cocoanut  is  dropped 
in  a  pre-determined  direction,  but  in  the  selection  of  objects 
peculiarly  suited  to  their  several  purposes.  When  ancient 
man  first  faced  a  gravel  bed,  with  a  gleam  of  intelligence 
in  his  countenance,  and  noted  the  infinite  variety  of  shapes 
and  size  of  the  pebbles,  that  moment  was  the  daybreak  of 
his  intellect,  and  when  his  hand  grasped  a  selected  stone  and 
he  used  it,  rather  than  his  fist,  to  effect  a  purpose,  that  day 
implements  were  brought  into  existence ;  a  new  idea,  a  new 
world,  a  new  train  of  thought  was  started  on  a  career  that 
is  yet  pushing  onward,  and  will  continue  its  irresistible 
journey  till  the  end  of  time. 


i6 

The  implement,  therefore,  ante-dates  the  artifact,  mean 
ing  by  the  former  any  natural  object  that  man  has  put  to 
use  to  further  his  endeavor.  To-day,  if  I  pick  up  a  pebble 
and  with  it  crack  a  nut,  that  pebble,  for  the  time  being, 
becomes  an  implement.  Obviously,  such  use  may  leave  no 
trace  behind  it,  and  if  stones  were  used  but  once  and  tossed 
aside  and  another  chosen  when  next  a  need  occurred,  it 
would  be  in  vain  to  seek  for  evidence  of  man's  presence,  but 
it  is  quite  within  the  range  of  probability  that  stones 
peculiarly  well  adapted  to  certain  uses  were  retained,  and  so 
the  idea  of  property  dawned  upon  the  primitive  mind,  and 
such  chosen  stones — now  implements — would  show  the 
effect  of  wear  and  tear  in  time,  and  I  doubt  not  but  that  speci 
mens  often,  which  have  been  gathered  from  gravel  deposits, 
having  attracted  the  attention  of  the  archaeologist  when 
in  search  of  "conclusive"  evidence,  are  discarded  as  indefi 
nite,  when  really  they  are  as  much  a  proof  of  man's  exist 
ence  as  the  desired  palaeolithic  artifact.  I  think  this,  because 
on  many  a  village  site,  associated  with  the  most  special 
ized  forms  of  stone  implements,  we  find  battered  and 
slightly-chipped  pebbles  that  are  not,  as  there  found,  objects 
of  doubtful  significance.  Replace  them  by  similar  objects 
from  the  gravel,  as  can  easily  be  done,  and  not  an  archaeol 
ogist  lives  who  can  tell  the  one  from  the  other. 

The  difficulty  is  enormous  of  determining  between  such 
abrasions,  fractures  and  rubbing  of  surfaces  as  natural 
forces  bring  about  and  those  resulting  from  the  use  of  a 
stone  by  man  as  an  implement.  It  is  so  often  impossible 
that  the  attempt  had  better  not  be  made,  for  though  the 
archaeologist  may  be  able  to  satisfy  himself,  he  will  fail  to 
convince  anyone  else,  for,  as  experience  has  shown,  it  needs 
but  the  negative  nod  of  ignorance  in  office  to  nullify  the 
results  of  honest  toil  in  the  field.  Nevertheless,  such  thank 
less  undertaking  should  not  be  always  shunned.  It  must 


I? 

not  be  forgotten  that  man  existed  undeterminable  thousands 
of  years  ago,  and  when  his  manhood  dawned,  and  for  long 
afterwards,  he  was  leaving  scarcely  more  traces  of  his  ele 
mental  culture  behind  him  than  do  the  anthropoid  apes  of 
to-day,  Surely,  a  battered  pebble  is  scant  evidence  of  man's 
presence  so  long  ago  as  when  the  melting  up-river  glacier 
was  pouring-  its  mighty  flood  down  the  valley  of  the  Dela 
ware,  and  while  there  are  pebbles  and  pebbles  and  marks  of 
violence  and  marks  of  violence,  is  there  or  not  the  remotest 
chance  of  unquestionably  distinguishing  between  those  that 
are  referrible  to  nature  and  those  referrible  to  man? 

I  have  in  mind  a  high,  dry,  sandy  field,  to  which  Nature 
never  carried  a  pebble.  Nothing  but  sand,  and  this  resting, 
twenty  feet  below,  on  clay.  Yet,  stones  are  not  uncommon, 
from  pebbles  not  larger  than  a  pigeon's  egg  to  boulders  of 
considerable  weight.  There  is  no  contradiction  here.  Every 
stone  was  brought  to*  where  it  now  lies  by  the  Indians.  Not 
all  show  signs  of  use,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  tell  their 
own  stories  of  playing  the  role  of  implement.  They  are 
worn  away  in  places  by  reason  of  continued  and  violent 
contact  with  other  equally  hard  or  more  resisting  objects, 
"pecking,"  as  it  is  usually  termed;  they  are  rubbed  down 
until  their  polished  surfaces  fairly  glisten ;  some  have  been 
exposed  to  fire  and  are  cracked  and  discolored  by  the  heat ; 
some,  doubtless,  were  gathered  because  of  their  color,  and 
were  treasured  as  ornaments,  or,  when  nearly  globular  and 
small,  used  in  playing  games.  Whatever  the  history  of 
these  pebbles,  altered  and  unaltered,  as  a  whole,  here  they 
are,  and  have  in  common  the  archaeological  significance  of 
having  been  brought  to  a  village  site  by  the  villagers. 

In  two  respects  they  are  of  great  interest  in  their  bearing 

on   the  question   of  the   traces   of  man   in   the   "Trenton 

Gravel."  They  show  how  all-important  a  part  pebbles  played 

in  man's  career  at  its  outset,  and,  again,  the  slightly  battered 

2  AB 


i8 

specimens  of  the  village  site  are  duplicated  by  pebbles,  d  simi 
larly  abraded,  occurring  in  the  gravel.  This  brings  uj  s,  in 
turn,  to  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  distinguis  ;hing 
between  naturally  and  artificially  battered  pebbles,  !  He 
comes  nearest  the  truth  probably  who,  holding  in  chec  k  the 
too  often  reckless  enthusiasm  of  the  archaeologist,  a  voids 
also  the  cold-blooded  caution  of  the  geologist. 

The  mark  left  by  the  sudden  contact  of  one  stone  with 
another  may  or  may  not  be  very  conspicuous,  but  it  i  nvari- 
ably  (?)  has  the  character  of  a  single  occurrence  o  f  such 
contact.  If,  again,  these  same  pebbles  should  come  ij  n  con 
tact  and  another  trace  of  like  violence  be  left,  the  c 
are  certainly  infinitesimally  small  that  such  marks  sh 
at  or  practically  at  the  same  point.  Pebbles  as  a  mas 


having  been  smoothed  to  uniformity  o<f  surface  by 


hances 
mid  be 
s,  after 
water- 
wearing,  are,  when  violently  agitated,  which  seldom  occurs, 
irregularly  pitted ;  but,  on  examining  the  selected  pebbles 
from  the  village  site,  the  battered  specimens  have  abraded 
surfaces  only  at  certain  points,  and  these  are  just  tl  lose  that 
would  be  exposed  to  violent  contact,  if  used  as  haiV  imers,  as 
in  pecking  away  the  surfaces  of  other  stones,/  as  when 
pebbles  were  shaped  to  axes,  celts  and  pestles,  I  or  in  the 
humbler  use  of  cracking  nuts  or  crushing  seeds  irJ  a  shallow 
mortar.  We  never  doubt  the  artificial  origin  of  st  Jch  pecked 
surfaces.  Now,  it  happens  that  we  occasionally  fj  md  pebbles 
in  the  gravel  with  a  trace  of  this  localized  peckJ  xl-away  or 
battered  surface,  and  such  specimens  are  worthy!  of  a  good 
deal  of  serious  consideration.  If  we  found  tb  iem  on  the 
surface  of  a  field,  their  claim  to  archaeological  significance 
would  never  be  disputed,  but,  occurring  in  th  e  gravel  at 
some  depth,  there  is  a  possibility  of  a  "natura'  1"  origin  of 
the  abraded  surface,  and  so  all  such  objeci  ts  are  per 
emptorily  ruled  out  of  court.  This  may  be  a  sai  e  procedure, 
so  far  as  the  judges  are  concerned,  but  so  doing]  is  far  away, 


19 

possibly,  from  the  actualities  involved.  We  can  come  to  no 
positive  conclusion,  it  may  be,  but  of  this  I  am  sure  that  the 
probability  is  largely  in  favor  of  many  a  battered  pebble  that 
is  now,  and  for  centuries  has  been,  a  constituent  part  of 
the  gravel  deposit,  having  become  battered  because  used  as 
an  implement. 

What  has  always  been  urged  as  an  insuperable  difficulty 
to  the  presence  of  man  in  the  Delaware  valley  at  the  time  of 
the  last  general  re-assorting  and  re-depositing  of  the 
irregular  gravel  beds  that  now  constitute  so  marked  a  fea 
ture  of  the  valley  at  the  head  of  tide- water  is  that  humanity, 
in  such  primitive  condition  as  to  be  dependent  on  pebbles 
for  implements,  could  not  have  reached  this  distant  point  of 
the  Atlantic  seaboard  from  the  center  of  distribution  of 
mankind.  As  to  this,  we  do  not  know  where  such  center 
was,  or  centers  were,  if  more  than  one.  Certainly,  this  is 
an  important  matter,  not  yet  finally  determined.  The  Asiatic 
origin  of  American  man  is  nothing  more  than  an  assump 
tion,  and  I  hold  that  as  time  does  not  enter  into  the  question 
at  all,  there  is  no  greater  difficulty  in  a  migration  of  such 
primitive  man  or  his  gradually  spreading  over  a  vast  terri 
tory  than  in  the  migration  of  any  other  mammal,  and  the 
difficulty  decreases  when  we  look  upon  it  as  a  very  gradual 
dispersion  and  not  a  predetermined  effort  to  go  up  and 
possess  the  land  in  any  one  direction.  The  most  formidable 
objection  that  I  can  see  in  the  existence  of  strictly  pre- 
glacial  man  is  the,  as  yet,  complete  absence  of  any  trace  of 
him.  We  prefer  facts  to  theory,  just  as  we  have  them  in 
abundance  in  the  valley  of  the  Delaware,  where  the  popular 
theory  of  his  non-existence  finds  scanty  basis.  The  battered 
pebbles  and  an  occasional  flat  one  from  which  a  few  very 
suggestive  flakes  have  been  detached,  hold  the  attention  of 
the  collector,  who  is  ever  hoping  for  more  tangible  evidence 
of  man,  and,  as  I  have  felt  for  many  years,  deserve  to  be 
considered  more  seriously  than  they  have  been. 


20 


THE  PALEOLITHIC  ARTIFACTS. 

And  what  now  of  that  associated  form,  the  palaeolithic 
artifact?  Indeed,  it  may  well  be  asked,  \vhat  is  it?  Is 
there  a  type  of  implement  than  can  readily  be  recognized  as 
something  separate  and  apart  from  an  unfinished  object  of  a 
later  pattern  ? 

When  we  speak  of  a  palaeolithic  artifact  as  a  pointed  object, 
from  five  to  eight  inches  in  length  and  the  product  of  man's 
handiwork,  we  have  gone  over  the  entire  range  of  certainty, 
and  all  subsequent  comment  must  necessarily  be  suggestive 
and  forever  subject  to  change  of  view.  As  no  European 
ever  saw  a  native  American  use  such  a  tool  or  weapon,  as 
the  case  may  be,  it  is  obviously  but  conjectural  how  he  did 
use  it;  but  that  there  wras  one  or  more  definite  purposes  in 
the  mind  oi  its  fabricator  is  certain.  That  it  was  not  a 
"simple"  implement,  as  suggested  by  Brinton,  is  probable,  as 
to  hold  it  in  the  hand  would  have  been  awkward,  and  blows 
with  it  not  particularly  effective,  except  in  hand-to-hand 
encounter,  which  probably  was  not  the  chief  occupation  or 
amusement  of  primeval  man.  If,  in  those  days,  man  was 
quick  to*  pick  a  quarrel,  such  an  object  as  a  palaeolithic  im 
plement  would  be  far  more  effective  as  a  weapon,  if  hafted, 
and  so  it  is  not  a  rash  conclusion  to  reach  that  such  man 
had  a  wit  equal  to<  the  invention  of  a  handle  to  his  favorite 
weapon.  Thus  armed  with  a  "compound''  weapon,  as  Brin 
ton  calls  them,  he  who  wielded  it  was  not  ill  equipped  to 
meet  the  attack  of  any  foe.  Implements  of  obsidian,  as 
rude,  if  not  more  rudely  fabricated,  were  recently  and  may 
yet  be  in  use  among  the  South  Sea  Islanders.  The  undis- 
putable  palaeolithic  artifact  has,  since  the  day  of  its  use  as 
the  armature  of  ancient  man,  been  largely  reproduced  in  the 
fashioning  of  more  specialized  implements,  and  this  has  led 


21 

to  much  confusion  in  the  minds  of  lay  readers,  through  the 
amusing  whims  of  strenuous  modernists,  who  have  ex 
amined — not  explored — the  territory  in  question  with  nota 
ble  lack  of  critical  acumen  and  apparently  with  no  serious 
intent.  The  result  of  such  conclusions  as  were  reached  and 
given  to  the  public — with  which  admissions  in  conversa 
tion  do  not  tally — is  that  all  unspecialized  artifacts  are 
''Indian  rejects."  The  truth  is,  the  resemblance,  as  stated, 
is  purely  accidental,  and  the  differences  ever  existing  are 
readily  detected  by  those  whose  studies  have  not  confined 
them  too  closely  to  the  museums.  It  must,  too,  never  be 
forgotten  that  the  circumstance  of  occurrence,  the  condition 
of  object  and  whether  associated  or  dissociated,  so  far  as 
unquestioned  recent  artifacts  are  concerned,  must  be  ever 
kept  in  view.  Apparently,  this  care  has  not  been  exercised 
by  those  who  desire  that  evidence  of  antiquity  shall  not 
materialize.  The  distinction  between  historiography  and 
archaeology  has  not  been  suspected.  The  former  has  been 
held  to  be  equal  to  all  the  demands  of  the  conditions  obtain 
ing,  and  the  latter,  while  perfunctorily  referred  to,  has  not 
been  recognized  as  what  it  is,  but  as  something  that  really 
had  no  case  in  court. 

Considered  collectively,  the  palaeolithic  artifacts  are  made 
of  argillite,  a  metamorphosed  slate  that  is  readily  shaped 
under  moderately  skillful  manipulation,  the  fracture  under 
pressure  or  well-directed  blows  being  conchoidal,  and  so  all 
the  excellency  of  flint,  for  such  purposes,  is  present.  While 
this  material,  argillite,  is  in  situ,  not  far  above  the  limit  of 
tide  water — about  twenty  miles — the  earliest  inhabitants  of 
the  Delaware  Valley  were  not  necessitated  to  seek  any  out 
crop  of  the  mineral,  inasmuch  as  large  boulders  of  the  same 
were  everywhere  to  be  found,  where  the  glacial  floods  had 
spread  out  a  deposit  of  gravel.  These  detached  masses  were 


22 

utilized  and  the  indications  are,  were  used  long  before  their 
origin  was  known  to  the  primitive  chipper.  It  is  altogether 
safe  to  assume  that  the  region  of  occurrence  in  place  of 
this  argillite  was  inaccessible  to  the  men  who  first  chipped 
the  boulders  that  were  scattered  over  the  habitable  areas. 

An  Indian  "reject"  made  five  hundred  years  ago  and  a 
palaeolithic  artifact  made  probably  five  thousand  years  ago, 
if  the  material  is  identical,  would,  it  is  natural  to  suppose, 
present  different  degrees  of  weathering  or  surface  decom 
position  in  some  measure  consonant  with  their  relative  age, 
but  this  is  not  necessarily  the  case.  The  older  object,  if  so 
buried  as  to  be  protected  from  corrosive  agencies,  may  re 
tain  a  freshness  of  surface  that  has  long  been  lost  by  the 
" reject"  lying  near  the  surface  and  alternately  exposed  and 
buried  and  subjected  to  frost,  heat  and  erosion  by  wind- 
driven  sands.  This  is  the  history  of  many  an  Indian  relic, 
and  often  we  find  them  so  far  altered  that  the  definition  of 
the  chipping  and  minor  features  of  design  are  obliterated; 
but  a  true  palaeolithic  artifact  from  gravel  undisturbed  for 
centuries  is  practically  the  same  as  when  fabricated,  and  only 
the  sharp  lines  indicative  of  detached  flakes  have  been  worn 
away.  They  often  have  a  freshness  of  surface  that  is  dis 
turbing  to  the  advocate  of  antiquity,  and  the  collector  is 
puzzled  to  fit  his  ideas  to  the  object  that  seemingly  is  of 
very  recent  origin.  This  must  ever  be  borne  in  mind,  and 
then  confusion  is  not  likely  to  arise.  It  is  in  the  museum  or 
the  library  that  trouble  comes.  When  in  the  field — his  only 
proper  place — the  archaeologist  realizes,  as  he  can  nowhere 
else,  what  changes  in  the  region  have  taken  place,  and  the 
distribution  of  newer  and  older  conditions  are  distinctly 
defined;  in  short,  the  procession  of  the  ages  passes  by. 
Again,  such  ancient  artifacts  are  found  singly.  Among  a 
million  pebbles,  a  deeply  buried  stratum  of  sand,  beneath  a 
narrow  band  of  clay,  anywhere  where  deposits  through  icy 


23 

floods  and  floating  ice  occur,  deep  or  near  the  present  sur 
face  of  the  field,  we  may  look  with  some  confidence,  but 
necessarily  the  chances  are  against  their  discovery.  These 
chance  relics  of  forgotten  time,  dropped  by  accident  and  at 
once  buried  by  the  shifting  sands,  have  been  left  from  then 
till  now,  as  a  veritable  pebble  among  pebbles,  hidden 
effectively  from  any  destroying  agency  and  remain  recog 
nizable  but  mute  witnesses  to  the  men  who  roamed  this  river 
valley  when  every  feature  of  it  was  wholly  different  from 
what  now  obtains. 

The  true  artifact  is  a  finished  implement.  The  same 
cannot  be  said  of  the  Indian  "reject."  The  palseolith,  if 
desired,  could  be  readily  reduced  to  smaller  size  or  even  to 
a  different  design,  but  the  true  reject  shows  why  it  is  such, 
and  that  further  expenditure  of  effort  would  be  in  vain. 
The  "fault"  in  the  mass  of  material  selected  is  plain  or  its 
generally  intractable  character  apparent,  and  so  the  reason 
for  rejection  evident,  but  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  un 
doubted  palaeolithic  artifact.  It  is  as  much  a  finished  imple 
ment  as  an  arrow-point  or  a  grooved  stone  axe.  There  is 
yet  another  point  to  be  considered.  In  the  immediate  valley 
of  the  river,  these  ancient  implements  are  either  buried  and 
exposed  by  digging  or  are  found  in  the  talus  where  an 
escarpment  is  gradually  crumbling  away;  but  they  are  not 
confined  to  such  areas,  but  are  found  buried  or  unburied,  as 
the  case  may  be,  miles  away  from  the  river's  shore  or  such 
adjacent  land  as  was  affected  by  its  activities  as  the  outlet 
of  a  glaciated  area.  Palaeolithic  man  was  not  a  semi- 
amphibious  creature  and  dependent  on  water  as  much  as 
land  to  lead  the  life  he  did.  He  may  have  been  much  as  is 
the  Greenland  Eskimo  of  to-day,  but  not  necessarily.  His 
was  no  insignificant  territory,  even  here  in  New  Jersey,  for 
the  coast  line  was  then  different,  and  much  land,  now  lost 
to  us.  was  familiar  to  him.  This,  I  unhesitatingly  assert, 


24 

because  what  I  believe  to  be  true  palaeolithic  artifacts  have 
been  found  in  the  southernmost  counties  of  the  State.  I 
have  found  them  in  both  Atlantic  and  Cape  May  counties, 
and  throughout  the  whole  intervening  area,  from  the  present 
coast  line  to  the  immediate  valley  of  the  Delaware,  they 
occur  singly,  and  usually  where  the  ordinary  Indian  relics  do 
not  occur.  Often  so  worn  by  exposure  to  the  shifting  sands, 
to  frost  and  rain,  they  are  not  readily  recognized,  when  seen 
apart,  but  when  a  series  are  brought  together,  the  lines  of 
original  fracturing  can  be  traced  by  aid  of  those  that  have 
been  protected  from  weathering.  There  is  a  limit  to  this, 
however,  and  many  a  perfectly  smooth  pebble  of  argillite, 
with  no  definition  of  chipping  remaining,  may  have  been  a 
sharply  defined  artifact  in  its  day,  just  as  wre  know7  that  many 
a  now  shapeless  splinter  of  the  mineral  was  an  arrow-point, 
because  of  some  slight  tell-tale  feature  remaining.  This 
view  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  water-worn  artifacts 
occur  in  the  bed  of  the  river,  so  smooth  and  even  polished 
that  the  thought  of  their  having  been  once  chipped  would 
not  occur  were  the  practiced  archaeologist  not  able  to  trace 
the  lines  that  once  were  prominent,  notwithstanding  the 
grinding  and  polishing  to  which  they  have  been  subjected. 
Placing  one  such  beside  another  that  has  escaped  erosion 
and  the  same  history,  so  far  as  artificiality  is  concerned,  can 
be  seen  to  apply  to>  both,  but  seen  alone,  the  eroded  or 
smoothed  one  might  be  readily  passed  unrecognized. 


What  to  many  has  seemed  a  valid  objection  to  the  view 
of  a  one-time  occupation  of  the  valley  of  the  Delaware  by 
palaeolithic  man,  is  that  raised  by  the  results  of  an  examina 
tion — in  no  case  exhaustive — of  the  conditions  obtaining  in 
the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  occurrence  of  argillite  in  situ. 
Here,  amid  a  mass  of  flakes,  splinters  and  chippings  in- 


25 

numerable,  are  found  unfinished  implements  and  rejects  that 
bear  a  marked  resemblance  to  the  claimed  ancient  finished 
artifacts  found  miles  distant.  Why,  it  is  triumphantly  asked 
by  the  explorer  of  the  non-tidal  reaches  of  the  valley,  are 
not  the  scattered  objects — the  so-called  "palaeolithic"  im 
plement — simply  those  unfinished  forms  which  the  Indian 
elected  to  retain  and  carried  away  with  him,  or,  if  found 
in  the  immediate  valley,  might  they  not  have  been  carried 
down  by  the  freshets  since  Indian  times?  These  questions 
demand  that  they  be  very  carefully  answered.  They  are 
very  pertinent  and  apparently  present  serious  objections  to 
my  view.  Had  I  not  intimate  knowledge  of  the  conditions 
both  in  the  non-tidal  and  tidal  areas,  I  should  be  perplexed, 
but  as  it  is  am  not  disturbed,  as  the  two  points,  the  tidal 
and  non-tidal,  have  really  nothing  in  common,  so  far  as  the 
archaeology  of  the  entire  river  valley  is  concerned. 

As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  the  objects  found  in  the 
tidal  areas  were  made — if  made  in  pre-Indian  time,  as  I 
claim — of  argillite  boulders  found  on  the  spot,  and  this  is 
the  more  probable  because  the  ice  at  present,  and  equally 
true  of  it  in  Indian  time,  does  not  transport  masses  of  stone 
as  large  as  an  average  palaeolithic  implement.  A  careful  ex 
amination  of  the  ice  as  it  has  floated  from  the  up-river 
regions  and  accumulated  in  the  tide-water  shallows,  shows 
that  nothing  of  greater  bulk — in  stone — than  sand  and 
robin's-egg  pebbles  are  transported,  and  the  number  of  the 
latter  is  very  inconsiderable.  If  not  floated,  or,  more  prop 
erly  speaking,  carried  by  the  ice,  may  they  not  have  been 
rolled  along  the  bed  of  the  river?  Doubtful,  to  say  the  least, 
and  if  so,  their  journey,  under  such  circumstances,  of  some 
twenty  miles  would  leave  such  indelible  marks  that  the  fact 
of  their  transportation  after  this  fashion  would  be  obvious 
to  all.  Chipped  implements,  as  already  pointed  out,  which 
have  been  subjected  to  much  water  action,  present  unmis- 


26 

takable  evidence  of  such  exposure,  and  are  readily  recog 
nized  as  such  when  compared  with  upland  specimens.  These 
water- worn  artifacts  are  not,  as  I  claim,  intrusive  objects, 
but  integral  parts  of  the  gravel  deposit  which  now  forms 
part  of  the  present  river's  bed. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  action  of  the  ice,  when 
moving,  as  when  there  occurs  a  "break-up"  in  the  spring,  is 
different  in  the  up-river  and  tidal-river  localities.  In  the 
former  the  ice  is  largely  grounded,  and,  when  moved,  neces 
sarily  pushes  the  gravel  before  it,  so  that  a  clean,  sandy 
beach  of  an  island  that  one  summer  may  be  free  from  large 
pebbles,  may  be  covered  with  them  the  following  season, 
but  when  these  same  cakes  of  ice  reach  the  deeper  tide 
water  they  float  and  so  cannot  aid  in  the  transportation  of 
anything  not  encased  in  them.  After  many  a  year's  search, 
I  have  found  no  ice-encased  pebbles  that  were  one-hundredth 
the  bulk  of  an  ordinary  argillite  artifact.  Buoyant  articles, 
as  wood,  eggs  and  shells,  have  been  frequently  found,  but 
never  a  stone  that  would  weigh  a  pound  or  two.  This  up- 
river  ice,  reaching  the  gravel  bluff  at  Trenton,  rests  against 
it  and  is  often  piled  to  more  than  half  its  height.  The  bluff 
itself  is  not  materially  affected  by  this  ice,  and  when  the 
force  of  the  accumulated  waters  dammed  by  the  ice  causes 
the  gorge  to  give  away  the  break  never  occurs  along  shore, 
but  near  the  middle  of  the  stream,  and  long  after  the  river  is 
clear  and  navigation  is  resumed  the  shore  ice  remains  where 
originally  lodged,  and  slowly  melts  away.  It  is  the  water- 
freshet,  due  to  great  rainfall,  that  undermines  the  bluff  at 
times  and  causes  it  to  crumble.  This  has  been  going  on  for 
so  long  a  time,  and  so  rapidly  since  the  deforesting  of  the 
country,  that  the  river  is  now  far  wider  and  shallower  than 
when  the  Indian  dwelt  along  its  banks.  Not  a  colonist  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  could  he  return,  would  recognize 
the  Delaware  of  to-day  as  the  river  that  was  so  attractive 
when  he  saw  it  first. 


27 

Other  explanation  than  transportation  from  the  rock 
in  situ  must  be  sought  for  the  presence  of  those  implements 
found  mingled  with  the  gravel  and  now  exposed  to  view. 
Air.  W.  H.  Holmes  has  suggested  that  an  Indian,  walking 
along  the  river  shore,  chose  a  pebble  and  attempted  to 
fashion  a  blade.  The  mineral  failed  to  lend  itself  satisfac 
torily  to  the  implement-maker  and  he  tossed  it  aside.  Here, 
centuries  later,  we  find  this  "reject,"  and  presumptuous,  is  it, 
indeed,  to  look  upon  it  as  anything  else.  Why  could  not  an 
Indian  walk  upon  exposed  gravel  and  pick  up  a  pebble  as 
well  as  we  can  to-day  ? 

There  are  two  considerations  to  which  we  must  give  heed 
when  this  question  is  asked.  We  are,  in  the  first  place, 
tacitly  informed  that  the  Indian  was  given  to  chipping  stone 
in  this  haphazard  way  to  supply  a  sudden  need  upon  the 
spot,  all  of  which  is  a  gratuitous  assumption,  for  though 
argillite  boulders  and  pebbles  were  available,  there  was, 
doubtless,  selection  of  material  exercised,  if  we  may  judge 
from  the  fact  that  argillite  artifacts,  as  we  find  them,  show 
no  evidence  of  intractability,  and  could  have  been  reduced 
in  size;  hence,  in  no  sense  can  the  term  "reject"  be  applied 
to  them.  The  impracticability  of  reducing  a  piece  of  argil- 
lite  to  desired  shape  would  be  so  early  recognized  that  real 
failures  would  have  more  the  appearance  of  frost-fractured 
stone  and  be  little  suggestive  of  human  interference. 
Then,  again,  if  the  object  as  found  has  been  lying  undis 
turbed  on  the  river  shore  for  centuries — two  centuries  at 
least — why  is  it  that  the  chips  are  not  there  also?  These 
are  never  found  under  such  circumstances.  In  fact,  they 
are  very  rarely  found  at  all  in  the  gravel  where  the  implement 
itself  occurs,  and  yet  in  numbers  they  exceed  the  "reject" 
or  finished  object  at  least  as  ten  to  one.  Furthermore,  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  the  river  shore  where  we  find  rude 
implements  is  the  same  to-day  as  when  the  Indian  wandered 


28 

along  it  centuries  ago.  Everywhere  the  river  shows  clearly 
how  the  never-resting  tidal  flow  wears  away  the  shore,  car 
rying  sand  and  fine  gravels  from  one  point  and  spreading 
it  elsewhere  to  form  a  sand  bar,  it  may  be,  and  turning  the 
channel  from  one  side  of  the  stream  to  the  other,  and  so  ex 
posing  long  reaches  of  the  shore  to  wasting,  that  for  many 
a  year  had  been  fixed  and  apparently  secure.  Often  the 
mud  is  entirely  removed  from  the  underlying  gravel,  and 
abundant  traces  of  Indian  occupation  are  brought  to  light, 
and,  less  frequently,  so  strong  a  current  attacks  a  given 
point  that  even  the  gravel  is  moved  and  deep  holes  are 
formed,  to  be  filled  in  time  with  the  wasting  shore  from  a 
point  perhaps  a  mile  away.  This  is  the  story  of  the  river 
of  to-day,  and  so  it  has  been  for  centuries ;  and  yet  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  we  can  fill  the  moccasin  prints  of  the 
Indian  by  walking  now  along  the  water's  edge.  I  submit 
that  it  is  asking  a  great  deal  too  much. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  rudely  chipped  implements, 
when  found  on  the  gravelly  shore  of  the  river,  have  fallen 
out  from  the  bank  and  rolled  down  from  where  they  had 
long  been  lying.  This  is  not  at  all  improbable;  but  how 
does  this  modernize  the  object,  when  the  gravel  extends 
quite  to  the  surface?  The  pebbles  and  bowld.ers  at  the  top 
of  the  bank  are  clearly  as  much  a  part  of  the  deposit  as  are 
those  at  its  base,  and  while  the  surface  may  be — is,  in  fact — 
less  ancient  than  the  deeper  gravels,  still  they  can  not  be 
dissociated ;  and  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  we  find,  on  the 
gravel  at  the  foot  of  the  bluff  or  other  exposure,  only  the 
rude  argillite  objects  at  the  water's  edge  or  on  the  flat  laid 
bare  at  low  tide,  and  not  a  general  assortment  of  the  Indian's 
handiwork,  including  pottery ;  and  we  must  not  overlook  the 
fact  that  the  "gravel-bed"  implements  bear  evidence  of  all 
the  conditions  to  which  the  gravel  itself  has  been  subjected 
— this  one  stained  by  manganese,  that  incrusted  with  limo- 


29 

nite;  this  fresh  as  the  day  it  was  chipped,  because  lost  in 
sand  and  water  and  not  subsequently  exposed  to  the  atmos 
phere;  that  buried  and  unearthed,  rolled,  scratched  and 
water-worn  until  much  of  its  artificiality  has  disappeared. 
The  history  of  almost  every  specimen  is  written  upon  it, 
and  not  one  tells  such  a  story  as  has  been  told  about  it  by  the 
originator  and  advocate  of  the  "Indian-reject"  theory. 

As  I  have  already  mentioned,  it  has  been  stated  in  the 
most  positive  manner,  which  only  positive  evidence  could 
warrant,  that  artifacts  have  not  been  found  in  situ  in  gravel 
deposits  at  a  distance  from  the  river,  and  such,  if  there  were 
such,  as  appeared  to  be  in  the  gravel,  were  recent  intrusions. 
This  statement,  in  its  several  parts  and  its  entirety,  is  abso 
lutely  incorrect,  and  no  excuse  can  be  offered  for  its  publica 
tion.  It  is  to  be  explained,  however,  because  avowedly 
predetermined.  Wherever  the  glacial  gravel  of  the  Dela 
ware  tide-\vater  region  is  found,  there  palaeolithic  implements 
occur,  as  they  also  do  on  and  in  the  surface  of  areas  beyond 
the  gravel  boundary.  We  accept,  notwiths  can  ding  the  un 
scientific  source  of  the  suggestion,  the  statement  that  post 
glacial  floods  inhumed  all  traces  of  man  found  beneath  the 
superficial  soils,  and  find  that,  if  these  traces  are  considered 
in  that  light,  some  mysterious  power  was  behind  the  sense 
less  flood,  and  always  buried  argillite  palaeolithic  implements 
far  down  in  the  gravel,  and  then  selected  argillite  artifacts 
of  more  specialized  forms  for  the  overlying  sands  and 
reserved  the  pottery  and  jasper  arrow-points  for  the  vegeta 
tion-sustaining  soil.  This,  as  stated,  is  absurd,  but  such  is 
the  order  of  occurrence  of  the  traces  of  early  man  in  the 
upland  fields. 

Much  stress  was  laid  by  this  same  author  upon  the  nega 
tive  evidence  of  failure  to  discover  artifacts  when  extensive 
excavations  for  sewers  were  made  in  the  streets  of  Trenton. 
It  is  not  at  all  strange  that  no  palaeolithic  implements  were 


30 

forthcoming.  The  digging"  in  question  was  always  so  nar 
row,  so  deep  and  generally  so  dripping  with  moisture  that  it 
was  impossible  to  examine  the  sides  of  the  excavations,  and 
so  treacherous  withal,  this  gravel,  that  as  the  dirt  was 
removed  the  trench  was  planked  to  prevent  caving.  No 
human  being  ever  could  or  ever  did  make  any  critical  exam 
ination  of  these  sewer  trenches,  and.  all  that  could  be  done 
was  to  examine  the  gravel  as  thrown  out,  shovelful  at  a 
time,  This  I  did  for  many  days,  and  never  was  aware  that 
there  was  another  Richmond  in  the  field.  As  we  all  know, 
when  a  hole  is  dug,  the  dirt  from  the  bottom  is  on  the  top  of 
the  heap  thrown  out.  Now,  it  does  happen  that  I  found  at 
the  very  crest  of  a  ridge  of  gravel  thus  tossed  out  from  the 
trenches,  two  artifacts,  which  were  forwarded  to  the  Pea- 
body  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.  And  what  if  nothing 
were  found?  Negative  evidence  at  most.  But  consider  the 
territory  explored!  We  might  as  well  think  we  know  a 
field  by  following  its  fences.  Mr.  Holmes  hoped  to  find  a 
grain  of  dust  on  a  thread  of  gossamer,  or,  what  is  far  more 
probable,  was  desperately  afraid  that  he  might  do  so.  This 
really  is  all  that  need  be  said  on  this  phase  of  the  subject. 

It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  the  Trenton  gravel,  with 
traces  of  man  therein,  should  contain  no<  other  evidence  of 
animal  life.  Such  a  condition  would  greatly  complicate  the 
question,  and  we  might  well  look  askance  at  asserted  evi 
dence  o<f  a  human  being-  living  under  such.  It  must  be  made 
apparent  how  he  could  have  lived,  and  this  is  done  by  the 
•occurrence  in  the  same  deposits  of  a  wide  range  of  mam 
malian  life.  The  report  o<f  the  State  Geologist,  for  1878, 
informs  us :  "There  has  been  found  in  the  terrace  of  modi 
fied  drift  at  Trenton  the  tusk  of  a  mastodon  *  *  * 
the  inference  seems  plain  that  the  climate  at  that  time  (i.  c., 
during  the  deposition  of  the  Trenton  gravel)  admitted  of 


the  growth  of  animals  like  the  elephant  in  size  and  habits." 
To  this  I  would  add  an  extract  from  a  paper  by  the  late 
Samuel  Lockwood,  on  mastodon  remains  from  New  Jersey. 
He  remarks,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  most  interesting 
account : 

4 'Two  facts  have  much  impressed  me — the  great  geo 
logical  antiquity  of  the  mastodons  as  a  race,  and  the  very 
recent  existence  of  the  individual  we  are  discussing.  The 
race  began  in  Miocene  time;  this  individual  lived  in  the 
quaternary  age,  and  wTell  up  into  the  soil-making  period. 
There  is  little  if  any  differentiation  of  the  molars.  The 
cusps,  or  teats,  on  the  crown  are  high  and  prominent, 
although  I  think  it  must  have  been  one  of  the  very  last  of 
its  tribe.  Though  the  race  came  before  those  great  castors 
now  extinct,  this  individual  was  contemporary  with  the 
existing  beaver,  and  doubtless  with  the  aboriginal  man. 

"It  is  singular  that  in  the  present  controversy  respecting 
the  subsidence  of  a  part  of  the  eastern  coast-line  of  the 
United  States,  I  have  never  seen  the  testimony  of  the  mas 
todon  put  in  evidence.  As  already  said,  this  animal  has  run 
through  a  long  stretch  of  geologic  time.  I  saw  a  tusk  taken 
from  the  Trenton  gravels  of  New  Jersey  which  belong  to 
the  ice  age,  or  glacial  epoch.  I  have  part  of  a  tusk  taken 
from  the  shore  in  Monmouth  county.  New  Jersey,  after  a 
storm.  This  storm  from  the  sea  had  washed  away  the  drift 
which  covered  an  ancient  swamp,  in  which  this  relic,  with 
other  bones,  had  been  entombed.  But  that  swamp  had  been 
far  inland,  sufficient  for  a  depression  to  exist  far  enough 
away  from  the  action  of  the  sea  to  enable  it  to  support  a 
non-marine,  sub-aquatic  vegetation.  The  subsidence  had 
allowed  the  sea  to  come  up  and  uncover  that  creature's 
grave.  Last  summer,  at  Long  Branch,  I  saw  a  fine  masto 
don's  tooth  which  was  taken  up  by  fishermen  out  at  sea.  I 
have  also  some  fragments  of  a  mastodon's  tooth,  besides 


32 

an  almost  entire  one  of  remarkable  size. 
It  was  given  me  as  coming  from  Long  Branch,  where  it  was 
obtained  so  long  ago  that  its  history  was  forgotten.  I 
detected  upon  it  the  microscopic  skeletons  of  marine  bry- 
ozo&,  the  same  species  that  I  have  often  found  on  the  shells 
of  ouir  modern  oysters.  This  tiny  animal  can  only  attach 
itself  to  a  clean  anchorage  in  the  clear  sea-water.  Hence 
this  tooth  was  evidently  got  from  the  sea;  and,  more,  its 
old  grave  of  mud  or  peat  was  long  ago  invaded  by  the  sea 
and  churned  up,  so  as  to  float  it  away,  leaving  the  tooth  on 
the  clean,  sandy  ocean-floor. 

"So  it  is  plain  that  the  mastodon  came  into  what  is  now 
New  Jersey  ere  the  ice-sheet  began.  It  receded  south  before 
it.  It  followed  the  thawing  northward,  and  so  again  pos 
sessed  the  land.  It  occupied  this  part  of  the  country  when 
its  shore-line  was  miles  farther  out  to  sea  than  it  is  to-day. 
Here  it  was  confronted  by  the  human  savage,  in  whom  it 
found  more  than  its  match;  for,  before  this  autochthonic 
Nimrod,  Behemoth  melted  away." 

The  list  of  mammals  known  to  have  lived  here  at  this 
time  is  not  a  long  one,  but  it  is  suggestive.  Leidy  has 
reported  the  walrus  from  New  Jersey,  and  Cope  states : 
"The  Greenland  reindeer  was  a  resident  of  New  Jersey 
when  the  walrus  was  on  its  shores  and  when  the  climate 
resembled  that  of  its  present  home."  True,  except  that  all  the 
indications  favor  the  view  that  the  climate  was  not  so 
arctic  as  at  present  in  the  range  of  the  reindeer.  The  moose, 
according  to  Allen,  probably  "in  glacial  times  inhabited  the 
eastern  coast  of  the  United  States  southward  to  Virginia." 
Mr.  Volk  has  found  one  bone,  referred  by  competent 
authority  to  the  musk-ox.  The  seal  still  wanders  up  the 
river,  and  doubtless,  centuries  ago  was  a  common  feature 
of  the  river's  icy  waters.  Surely  the  land  was  ripe  for 
human  occupation,  and  it  would  be  far  more  strange  if  it 


OF 

FO 


33 


could  be  proved  that  it  was  not  so  occupied,  than  is  the 
offered  demonstration  that  palaeolithic  man  shared  the  region 
with  these  creatures.  The  conditions  were  more  favorable 
here,  then,  than  now  confront  the  boreal  race  of  the  con 
tinent,  the  Eskimo. 

The  relation  of  this  arctic  race  to  the  historic  Indian  has 
been  much  discussed,  and  it  was  to  be  hoped  that  the 
exhaustive  explorations  of  the  gravels  about  Trenton,  by 
Mr.  Volk,  would  bring  to  light  crania  that  would  settle  the 
question  for  all  time,  but  such  skulls  as  have  been  found 
under  conditions  indicative  of  vast  antiquity  (but  three  in 
number,  so  far  as  I  am  aware)  do  not  bear  out  the  Eskimo 
theory.  Dr.  Hrdlicka  states  them — two  of  them — to  be 
southern  rather  than  northern  in  type,  the  other  not  sep 
arable  from  the  Indian. 

Notwithstanding  this  discouraging  result,  the  question 
remains  a  prominent  one,  and  the  literature  of  the  subject  is 
too  extensive  to  be  ignored.  I  will  return  to  this  discussion 
on  a  subsequent  page. 

i 

THE    PRE-INDIAN    IMPLEMENTS. 

Whether,  with  the  subject  as  presented,  the  reader  looks 
favorably  or  not  upon  the  solution  of  the  riddle  of  the  rude 
implements  to  which  I  have  applied  the  term  "palaeolithic," 
the  archaeologist  stands  on  a  firmer  footing  and  need  be 
less  apologetic  when  treating  of  that  other  phase  of  the  sub 
ject,  that  of  the  practically  exclusive  use  of  argillite  and  the 
evidence  of  this  use  ante-dating  that  of  quartz,  jasper  and 
the  allied  silicious  materials. 

To  the  assumed — I  think,  demonstrated — palaeolithic 
man,  this  mineral  was  as  iron  to  us,  his  main  dependence. 
Not  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  availability  of  other  and 

3  AB 


34 

even  better  adapted  material,  but  no  other  material  more 
fully  met  the  requirements  of  his  limited  needs.  Time, 
however,  wrought  its  changes  then,  as  it  does  now.  There 
was  slowly  brought  about  such  alterations  of  climate  as 
affected  him  vitally.  Of  greatest  moment  was  the  gradual 
cessation  of  strictly  glacial  activity  and  the  river  began  to 
wear  something  the  appearance  that  it  now  has  when  at  a 
freshet  stage.  Change  the  environment  and  the  habit 
changes.  This  is  a  fixed  law  of  Nature.  Man's  habits 
changed.  The  "palaeolithic"  implement,  tool  or  weapon,  as 
the  case  might  be,  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  we  look  now 
upon  the  pre-historic  bronzes  of  our  remote  predecessors. 
The  new  conditions  had  made  new  men  of  the  descendants  of 
their  ancestors  of  the  Ice  Age.  They  aspired  to  better 
armature  and,  can  we  doubt,  the  change  of  the  fauna  and 
increasing  wariness  of  game  made  such  change  in  hunting 
implements  imperative.  It  is  still  possible  to  drive  a  nail 
with  a  stone,  but  we  prefer  a  hammer.  With  this  specializa 
tion  of  implements  came  the  necessity  for  mo-re  careful 
inspection  of  the  unworked  material  and  the  source  of  the 
original  supply  as  boulders  and  pebbles  was  found  up  the 
river  valley,  some  twenty  miles  above  tide  water.1  Naturally 
it  became  a  place  of  importance,  and  how  important  is  evi 
dent  from  the  traces  still  remaining  of  the  implement-mak 
ing  industry.  It  clearly  foreshadowed  the  steel  trust  of  to 
day. 

That  the  entire  output  of  argillite  objects,  large  and  small, 
and  of  every  pattern,  should  be  referred  to  so  important  a 
manufacturing  centre  as  about  Point  Pleasant,  is  not  more 
strange,  perhaps,  than  that  we  now  think  of  Pittsburgh  or 
Bethlehem  when  we  see  some  vast  construction  of  iron ;  but 


1  H.  C.  Mercer  :  various  papers  by,  in  Proc.  A.  A.  A.  S.,  1892,  1893 ; 
''Science,"  June,  1893;  Amer.  Nat.,  1893;  Publications,  Univ.  Pa.  VI., 
1897- 


35 

not  all  manufactured  metal  comes  from  these  points.  Early 
in  our  career  as  a  nation,  down  in  the  "Pines"  of  southern 
New  Jersey,  iron  was  gotten  from  bog  ore  there  and  made 
available  with  charcoal  as  fuel.  So,  precisely,  long  before 
the  American  stone  age  man  discovered  Point  Pleasant  and 
the  argillite  out-crop,  he  had  a  supply  of  this  material,  equal 
to  his  needs,  in  the  boulders  scattered  not  only  in  the 
immediate  valley  of  the  river  but  over  the  surface  of  the 
land  that  was  habitable,  when  the  river  itself  was  yet  choked 
with  ice. 

The  locality  has  been  frequently  visited  and  much  written 
of,  but  this  literature  has  largely  the  defect  o>f  being  pre 
pared  for  a  purpose,  that  of  modernizing  the  arrival  of  man 
in  the  region.  It  is  clearly  evident  that  no  archaeological 
survey  of  a  limited  area  is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  compre 
hensive  conclusion.  This  fact  has  not  been  recognized,  and 
while  the  various  papers  treating  of  the  region  are  marked 
by  accurate  description,  the  inferences  drawn  that  because 
palaeolithic-like  objects — mostly  "rejects" — are  found  here, 
the  isolated  and  older  weather-worn  and  water-worn  objects 
of  superficially  like  appearance  of  the  tide-water  region,  are 
identical  in  age  and  origin — all  this  is  quite  unwarranted. 
Under  a  walnut  tree,  not  long  ago,  I  found  a  slab  of  stone 
and  battered  pebbles  that  had  been  used  in  ridding  a  great 
heap  of  nuts  of  their  hulls.  The  abraded  surfaces  were 
precisely  such  as  are  seen  on  every  "hammer"  found  on  an 
Indian  village  site.  Ergo,  the  battered  pebbles  are  nothing 
earlier,  at  most,  than  colonial  occupation.  This  fairly  rep 
resents  the  "logic"  of  the  conclusions  reached  by  some  who 
have  given  the  argillite  out-crop  close  attention.  Close, 
surely,  considering  the  details  given,  but  not  close  enough. 
The  locality  is  clearly  one  with  the  more  specialized  argillite 
man,  traces  of  whom  are  found  unequivocally  associated 
with  the  gravel-capping  sands  that  overspread  the  Trenton 
gravel  throughout  much  of  its  extent. 


36 

At  the  argillite  out-crop  we  have,  as  I  have  seen  demon 
strated  by  excavation  on  two  occasions,  evidence  of  industry 
when  argillite  was  solely  in  demand,  and  here  there  was 
always  a  commingling  of  the  rudest  with  the  most  elaborate 
form  of  implement.  They  could  not  be  dissociated  in  any 
way,  and  clearly,  under  such  circumstances,  any  object  that 
bore  resemblance  to  a  palaeolith  was  necessarily  a  rejected 
blocking  out  of  something  of  more  definite  character.  This 
is  significant  and  more  so  that  chips  of  all  sizes  outnumber 
finished  objects,  hundreds  to  one.  Now,  this  is  not  appli 
cable  to  argillite  as  distributed  throughout  the  river  valley's 
tide-water  extent.  The  conditions  there,  differ  absolutely. 

Again,  and  of  equal  importance  is  the  fact  that  nearer  the 
present  surface  of  the  same  locality,  where  the  greatest 
variation  of  forms  of  small  implements,  arrow-heads,  drills, 
scrapers  and  knives  occur,  pottery  is  also  present  and  points 
of  jasper  and  quartz.  The  introduction  of  these  silicious 
materials  for  weapons  and  implements  did  not  cause  the 
abandonment  of  argillite.  Steel  forks  and  pewter  spoons 
are  still  to-  be  bought  at  hardware  shops.  The  man  here  in 
the  Delaware  valley,  undertermined  centuries  ago  simply 
passed  from  the  argillite  to  the  quartz  age,  but  no  more 
discarded  the  former  mineral  for  the  latter  than  do  we,  in 
our  iron  age,  give  up  the  use  of  copper.  The  argillite  out 
crop  in  the  river  valley  nearest  to  the  tide-water  region  is 
post-palaeolithic,  but  at  its  incipiency,  pre-Indian,  if  by  the 
term  "Indian"  we  mean  the  advanced  savage  of  the  day  of 
the  continent's  discovery  by  the  Norsemen  or  later,  by 
Columbus. 

Returning  to  a  consideration  of  the  territory,  where  tidal- 
action  occurs,  the  omnipresent  argillite  arrow-point  is 
suggestive  in  other  lines.  We  are  not,  here,  concerned  so 
much  with  the  origin  of  the  mineral  as  with  the  object  itself. 
The  extreme  degrees  of  decomposition,  that  we  now  find, 


37 

does  not  occur  at  the  mineral's  outcrop.  Supposing  it  to 
have  been  abandoned  about  three  centuries  ago — certainly, 
not  later — that  lapse  of  time  has  not  sufficed  to  weather  the 
specimens  left  there  to  any  such  degree  as  we  find  on  the 
fields  extending  across  the  State  from  Trenton  to  Cape  May. 
Many  an  isolated  arrow-point,  as  now  found,  preserves  its 
shape  but  has  small  hold  upon  its  original  value  as  a  weapon. 
Not  only  its  surface  but  almost  to  its  heart,  it  is  reduced  to 
the  consistency  of  chalk.  A  core  alone  remains  by  which, 
in  many  cases,  we  can  trace  it  back  to  the  argillite  in  place,  a 
hundred  miles  or  more,  away.  Not  all  argillite  is  the  same 
in  consistency.  Its  chemical  make-up  varies  a  good  deal. 
The  elements  attack  it  in  different  ways,  and  while  the 
greater  number  are  uniformly  decomposed,  others  are  pitted 
or  honey-combed,  the  carbonic  acid  in  rain  water  having 
eaten  out  every  trace  of  lime;  and  still  others  are  not  only 
weathered  to  the  point  of  non-recognition  as  artifacts  except 
by  the  aid  of  a  graded  series,  but  are  encrusted  with  limonite, 
itself  a  condition  that  indicates  a  greater  age  for  the  argillite 
points  than  those  made  of  jasper  or  quartz,  as  these  have  as 
yet  escaped  such  incrustation.  I  have  examined  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  arrow-points  of  all  materials  ever 
used  and  have  never,  here,  in  New  Jersey,  found  any  with 
limonitic  incrustation,  except  those  of  argillite.  This  does 
not  arise  from  any  peculiarity  of.  the  mineral  inviting  such 
incrustation,  for  pebbles  of  every  kind  known  to  the  Trenton 
gravels  show  marks  of  it,  but  never,  I  hold,  a  quartz  or 
jasper  arrow-point  but  is  as  clean  and  sharp  to-day  as  when 
it  was  chipped. 

Fortunately  for  the  interests  of  archaeological  research, 
there  yet  remain  areas  that  have  been  undisturbed  since  the 
days  of  the  Indian.  Forests  have  flourished  and  decayed 
and  grown  again;  the  tide  has  ebbed  and  flowed  through 


38 

many  a  marsh ;  upland  swamps  escaped  the  desolating  hand 
of  Improvement;  not  every  acre  converted  into  a  smiling 
field,  but  wearing,  rather,  a  sardonic  grin.  Nature  can 
tell  her  own  story  when  given  half  a  chance,  and  man  figures 
in  it,  here,  in  the  sands  of  South  Jersey.  He  is  one  of  the 
many  illustrations  that  illume  her  pages;  not  in  the  same 
chapter  with  her  fossil  shells  and  bones,  but  nearer  to  some 
of  the  latter  than  geologists  have  been  willing  to  admit. 

Rambling,  in  search  of  relics,  over  the  country  and  look 
ing  for  them,  not  on  ploughed  fields  or  wasting  sand  banks, 
but  where  the  chance  of  success  is  most  remote,  it  sometimes 
happens  that  an  arrow-point  is  found,  or  some  larger 
chipped  implement  of  unknown  use.  The  question  of  its 
origin  instantly  arises,  but  in  such  a  case,  we  can  only  refer 
it  to  chance  and  so  know  nothing  more  than  before  we 
picked  it  up.  This  is  true  of  one  or  a  few  such  discoveries, 
but,  retaining  the  objects  we  find,  after  years  of  such  search 
ing,  we  find  that  a  light  is  thrown  over  a  series  that  failed 
to  be  detected  when  it  fell  on  one  alone. 

These  isolated  objects  are  scattered  fairly  evenly  and  often 
occur  where,  under  present  conditions,  man  could  not  have 
lived,  and  it  is  safe  to  assert,  so  far  as  the  tide-water  region 
of  New  Jersey  is  concerned,  that  the  scattered  relics  are  fully 
ninety-five  per  cent,  of  argillite.  Surely,  there  is  significance 
in  this. 

Again,  taking  all  the  relics  that  have  been  gathered  from 
the  same  area,  I  believe  it  will  be  found  that  those  of  argillite 
so  largely  outnumber  those  of  other  material  that  the  pro 
portion  is  suggestive  of  the  jasper  and  quartz  figuring  as 
the  proverbial  exception  to  the  rule.  The  latter  are  the  gath 
erings  from  village  sites  and  burials ;  the  former  are  found, 
as  are  the  pebbles,  as  if  broadcasted  by  Nature  and  not 
through  man's  agency.  This  means  that  argillite  man  pre 
ceded  the  chipper  of  flint,  and  this  in  turn  does  not  mean  that 


39 

former  was  simply  the  grandfather  of  the  latter.  There 
is  no  such  scattering  of  the  relics  of  the  historic  Indian 
over  the  entire  surface  of  the  southern  counties  of  the 
State  as  there  is  of  these  rude  argillite  flakes  and  knives, 
and  many,  if  not  most,  now  so  weather-worn  that  many 
have  passed  the  stage  of  absolute  certainty  of  recognition. 

Based  on  an  estimate  of  thousands  of  relics  of  the  his 
toric  Indian  in  every  county  of  the  State,  which  is  quite 
within  bounds,  what  of  the  tens  of  thousands  of  the  older 
implements  of  argillite?  Is  it  not  inconsistent  with  the  as 
sumption,  seriously  set  forth,  that  an  estimate  can  be  made 
in  years  of  when  man  first  pressed  foot  on  the  soil  of  New 
Jersey  ? 

If  then,  the  evidence  points  to  what  I  have  suggested  as 
a  Pre-Indian  people,  who  were  they  and  what  their  rela 
tion  to  the  historic  Indian?  If  we  had  as  firm  ground  to 
stand  on  as  is  our  confidence  when  given  to  taking  a  stand 
on  the  question,  light  might,  ere  this,  have  been  thrown 
on  the  subject.  The  problem  of  the  most  ancient  man  in 
America  is  complex,  and  probably  the  conclusions  finally 
reached  on  the  Pacific  coast,  in  mid-continental  regions  and 
along  our  Atlantic  seaboard,  will  not  be  quite  the  same, 
beyond  the  fact  that  the  invasion  of  the  continent  by  man 
is  a  subject  within  the  scope  of  geological  research. 

Granting  the  one-time  existence  of  palaeolithic  man,  we 
can  only  wonder  from  whence  he  came,  so  firmly  con 
vinced  are  geologists  that  the  parental  stock  was  no  strictly 
American  mammal.  However,  given  time  enough,  any 
thing  within  the  bounds  of  reason  can  occur,  and  there  is 
immensely  more  time  in  the  past  than  has  elapsed  since  the 
first  of  the  Lenni  Lenape  saw  the  Delaware  and  it  is  a  most 
reasonable  conclusion  that  wild  beasts  had  not  this  great 
section  of  the  earth's  land  surface  all  to  themselves.  Ac 
cepting  as  the  simplest  and  probably  safest  conclusion  that 


40 

the  pre-Indian,  argillite  man  of  the  glacial  sands  was  2 
descendant  of  palaeolithic  man,  to  what  known  race  can 
we  liken  him?  We  most  naturally  think  of  the  existing 
Eskimo,  and  surely  it  is  a  tempting  theory  to>  see  in  them 
a  survival  of  that  ancient  race  of  the  Delaware  valley.  A 
great  deal  has  been  written  in  years  past,  favoring  this  view, 
and  it  is  of  such  weight  that  it  should  not  be  forgotten  when 
the  results  of  later  archaeologists  are  presented. 

A  forcible  objection  that  has  been  urged  against  the  as 
sumption,  as  it  was  held  to  be,  of  a  pre-Indian  occupancy 
of  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  is  the  difficulty  of  realizing  that  a 
people  sufficiently  advanced  to  make  so  well-designed  a 
weapon  as  the  argillite  spear-head  should  not  have  utilized 
stone  in  various  other  ways  to  meet  their  wants,  precisely 
as  the  Indian  did  subsequently.  No  other  form  of  imple 
ment  than  these  spear-heads  was  clearly  associated  with 
them,  except  when  found  on  the  surface,  and  so  not  clearly 
separable  from  the  true  Indian  implements  associated  there 
with.  Recently,  the  occurrence  of  a  stone  hammer,  traces 
of  fire — charcoal — and  a  flat  stone  bearing  marks  of  a 
hammer  or  rubbing-stone,  at  a  depth  of  nearly  three  feet 
below  the  surface,  has  rendered  it  quite  probable  that  a 
proportion  of  the  surface-formed  relics  of  these  patterns 
should  be  regarded  as  of  other  than  Indian  origin.  If  we 
examine  a  series  of  the  stone  implements  of  the  only  other 
American  race — the  Esquimaux — we  will  find  that  not  only 
is  the  variation  in  pattern  very  considerable,  but  that  pre 
cisely  such  forms  of  domestic  implements  as  are  now  in  use 
in  the  Arctic  regions,  among  the  Chukches,  are  common 
"relics"  in  New  Jersey.  In  his  recent  volume  of  Arctic 
explorations,  Professor  Nordenskiold  describes  a  series  of 
stone  hammers  and  a  stone  anvil,  which  are  used  together 
for  crushing  bones.1  Every  considerable  collection  of  stone 

1  "Voyage  of  the  Vega,"  New  York,  1882,  p.  483. 


implements  gathered  along-  our  sea-board,  anywhere  from 
Maine  to  Maryland,  contains  numbers  of  identical  objects. 

While  many  of  these  hammers  and  mortars  are  unques 
tionably  of  Indian  origin,  no  valid  reason  can  be  urged  that 
a  proportion  of  them  are  not  of  the  same  origin  as  the  argil- 
lite  spear-heads.  Indeed,  grooved  stone  hammers  have  been 
found  quite  deeply  imbedded  in  the  sand — as  deep  as  the 
usual  depth  at  which  argillite  arrow-points  occur;  but  this, 
of  itself,  is  scarcely  significant.  So  unstable  is  the  surface 
of  the  earth  where  sand  prevails,  that  the  actual  position, 
when  found,  of  any  single  specimen,  is  of  little  importance. 
It  is  only  when  thousands  have  been  gathered  with  great 
care,  and  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  that  any 
inferences  may  be  drawn.  This  is  true  of  the  argillite 
arrow-heads,  of  which  thousands  have  been  gathered,  and 
presumably  true  of  the  hammers  and  mortars,  because  such 
implements  are  common  among  an  American  race  which 
uses  also  such  spear-points  as  are  so  abundant  in  New 
Jersey.  The  similarity  between  a  Chukche  spear-point 
figured  by  Nordenskiold1  and  an  Esquimau  spear  figured 
by  Lubbock2  and  the  New  Jersey  specimens  is  very  striking. 
Of  course,  such  similarity  may  be  considered  as  mere  coin 
cidence,  but  that  it  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  ques 
tion  becomes  evident  \vhen  the  many  circumstances  sug 
gestive  of  a  pre-Indian  race  on  the  Atlantic  sea-board  are 
collectively  considered.  Singly,  any  fact  may  be  held  to  be 
of  little  or  no  value ;  but  when  many  of  like  significance  are 
gathered  together,  they  are  self-supporting,  and  the  one  cen 
tral  fact  becomes  established. 

Basing  the  supposition  that  palaeolithic  man  was  not  the 
ancestor  of  the  American  Indian,  because  there  is  evidence 
warranting  the  belief  that  "the  Indian  was  a  late  comer 


1  Ibid.,  p.  571. 

'"Primitive  Industry,"  chapter  xxxi,  p.  453,   Salem,  Massachusetts, 
1881. 


42 

upon  the  extreme  eastern  border  of  North  America — indeed,, 
the  oldest  distribution  of  the  American  races  does  not  ante 
date  the  tenth  century,"  and  therefore  "the  appearance  of 
the  Skraelling  (Esquimau)  in  the  Sagas,  instead  of  the 
Indian,  is  precisely  what  the  truth  required"3  —basing  the 
supposition  thereupon,  it  was  suggested2  that  in  the  Esqui 
maux  we  should  find  the  descendants  of  that  oldest  of  all 
mankind — homo  palceolithiciis. 

Having  given  the  strictly  archaeological  reasons  for  dis 
sociating  certain  of  the  stone  implements  found  in  New 
Jersey,  let  us  now  briefly  refer  to  the  historical  evidence 
bearing  upon  this  question.  Have  we  any  references  to 
Esquimaux  dwelling  in  regions  significantly  south  of  their 
present  habitat?  If  there  are  such,  then  it  is  at  once  evident 
that  the  weapons  and  domestic  implements  of  such  people 
must  now  be  buried  in  the  dust  of  their  ancient  southern 
dwelling-places,  and,  these  same  spots  being  subsequently 
tenanted  by  the  Indian,  his  handiwork  must  also  be  mingled 
with  that  of  his  predecessors. 

The  literature  of  this  subject  can  be  sufficiently  outlined 
by  reference  to  two  authors.  Major  W.  H.  Ball,  in  "Tribes 
of  the  Extreme  Northwest,"3  remarks :  "There  are  many 
facts  in  American  ethnology  which  tend  to  show  that  orig 
inally  the  Innuit  of  the  east  coast  had  much  the  same  dis 
tribution  as  the  walrus,  namely,  as  far  south  as  New  Jersey." 
I  submit  the  rude  argillite  arrow-heads  found  in  certain 
localities  in  such  abundance,  and  at  a  significant  depth,  as 
an  additional  fact,  tending  in  the  same  direction. 


1  "Popular  Science  Monthly,"  vol.  xviii,  No.  i,  p.  38,  November,  1880, 
New  York. 

2  "Peabody  Museum  Report,"  vol.  ii,  p.  252,  Cambridge,  Massachu 
setts. 

3  "Contributions  to  North  American  Ethnology,"  vol.  i,  p.  98,  Wash 
ington,  1877. 


43 

In  B.  F.  De  Costa' s  admirable  resume  of  Icelandic  liter 
ature1  there  is  given  abundant  evidence — ay,  proof — that 
the  people  dwelling  along  the  coast  of  Massachusetts,  900 
to  1000  A.  D.,  were  not  the  same  race  that  resisted  the  Eng 
lish  on  the  same  coast  six  centuries  later.  The  descriptions 
of  the  people  seen  by  the  Northmen  show  that,  of  whatever 
race,  they  were  well  advanced  in  the  art  of  war,  and  used 
not  only  the  bow,  but  hatchets  and  the  sling.  They  were 
"men  of  short  stature,  bushy  hair,  rude,  fierce,  and  devoid  of 
every  grace."2 

It  need,  therefore,  only  be  remembered  that  the  relation 
ship  between  the  true  palaeolithic  implements  and  those  of 
more  advanced  finish  and  design  is  evident  to  every  one  who 
carefully  examines  a  complete  series.  At  the  same  time, 
the  student  is  confronted  with  reliable  historical  evidence  of 
the  occupancy  of  the  Atlantic  sea-board  by  the  Esquimaux 
as  far  south  as  New  Jersey. 

Does  not  the  impression  derived  from  strictly  archaeologi 
cal  studies,  that  all  the  stone  implements  of  our  eastern 
sea-board  are  not  of  one  origin,  go  far  to  confirm  the  posi 
tion  of  the  historical  student  that  an  earlier  race  than  the 
Indian  once  resided  here? 

De  Costa  remarks :  "During  the  eleventh  century  the  red- 
man  lived  upon  the  North  American  Continent,  while  the 
eastern  border  of  his  territory  could  not  have  been  situated 
far  away  from  the  Atlantic  coast.  In  New  England  he 
must  have  succeeded  the  people  known  as  Skraellings.  Prior 
to  that  time,  his  hunting-grounds  lay  toward  the  interior 
of  the  continent.  In  course  of  time,  however,  he  came  into 
collision  with  the  ruder  people  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  the 
descendants  of  an  almost  amphibious  glacial  man." 

This    "amphibious   glacial    man,"    I   submit,    is   he   who 


1  "Pre-Columbian  Discovery  of  America,"  Albany,  1868. 

2  "Popular  Science  Monthly,"  November,   1880,  p.  38,  New  York. 


44 

fashioned  the  rude  palaeolithic  implements,  that,  with  bones 
of  extinct  and  Arctic  mammalia,  are  now  found  in  the  gla 
cial  drift  of  our  river-valleys;  and  his  "descendants,"  a  rude 
people,  with  whom  the  Indian  finally  came  in  contact,  were 
those  who  fashioned  the  plainly  finished  argillite  arrow 
heads  and  spears  that  are  now,  in  part,  commingled  with  the 
elaborate  workmanship  of  the  latest  race,  save  one,  that  has 
peopled  this  continent. 

The  above  eleven  paragraphs,  written  more  than  twenty 
years  ago,  expressed  my  views  then  and  substantially  do  to 
day,  but  I  am  not  so  much  inclined  to  the  "Eskimo"  feature 
of  it.  As  already  mentioned,  such  crania  as  have  been  dis 
covered  do  not  point  in  that  direction,  and  possibly  to  crani- 
ology  we  shall  have  to  look,  for  a  final  solution  of  the 
problem. 

THE  HISTORIC  INDIAN. 

The  celebrated  Swedish  naturalist,  Peter  Kalm,  traveled 
throughout  Central  and  Southern  New  Jersey  in  1748-' 50, 
and  in  his  description  of  the  country  remarks  i1  "We  find 
great  woods  here,  but,  when  the  trees  in  them  have  stood 
a  hundred  and  fifty  or  a  hundred  and  eighty  years,  they 
are  either  rotting  within,  or  losing  their  crown,  or  their 
wood  becomes  quite  soft,  or  their  roots  are  no  longer  able  to 
draw  in  sufficient  nourishment,  or  they  die  from  some  other 
cause.  Therefore,  when  storms  blow,  which  sometimes 
happens  here,  the  trees  are  broke  off  either  just  above  the 
root,  or  in  the  middle  or  at  the  summit.  Several  trees  are 
likewise  torn  out  with  their  roots  by  the  power  of  the  winds. 
*  HC  *  jn  this  manner,  the  old  trees  die  away  continually, 
and  are  succeeded  by  a  younger  generation.  Those  which 
are  thrown  down  lie  on  the  ground  and  putrefy,  sooner  or 


travels  into  North  America,  by  Peter  Kalm,  London,  1771,  vol.  ii. 
p.  18. 


45 

later,  and  by  that  means  increase  the  black  soil,,  into  which 
the  leaves  are  likewise  finally  changed,  which  drop  abun 
dantly  in  autumn,  are  blown  about  by  the  winds  for  some 
time,  but  are  heaped  up  and  lie  on  both  sides  of  the  trees 
which  are  fallen  down.  It  requires  several  years  before  a 
tree  is  entirely  reduced  to  dust." 

This  quotation  from  Kalm  has  a  direct  bearing-  on  that 
which  follows.  It  is  clear  how,  to  a  great  extent,  the  sur 
face-soil  was  formed  during  the  occupancy  of  the  country 
by  the  historic  Indians.  The  entire  area  of  the  State  was 
covered  with  a  dense  forest,  which,  century  after  century, 
was  increasing  the  black  soil  to  which  Kalm  refers.  If, 
now,  an  opportunity  offers  to  examine  a  section  of  virgin 
soil  and  underlying  strata,  as  occasionally  happens  on  the 
bluffs  facing  the  river,  the  limit  in  depth  of  this  black  soil 
may  be  approximately  determined.  Miscroscopial  examina 
tion  of  it  enables  one  to  determine  the  depth  more  ac 
curately. 

An  average,  derived  from  several  such  sections,  leads  me 
to  infer  that  the  depth  is  not  over  one  foot,  and  the  pro 
portion  of  vegetable  matter  increases  as  the  surface  is  ap 
proached.  Of  this  depth  of  superficial  soil  probably  not 
over  one-half  has  been  derived  from  decomposition  of  veg 
etable  growths.  Indeed,  experiment  would  indicate  that 
the  rotting  of  tree-roots  yields  no  appreciable  amount  of 
matter.  While  no  positive  data  are  determinable  in  this 
matter,  beyond  the  naked  fact  that  rotting  trees  increase 
the  bulk  of  top-soil,  one  archaeological  fact  we  do  derive, 
which  is,  that  the  Hint  implements  known  as  Indian  relics 
belong  to  this  superficial  or  "black  soil,"  as  Kalm  terms 
it.  Abundantly  are  they  found  near  the  surface ;  more  spar 
ingly  the  deeper  we  go;  while  below  the  base  of  this  de 
posit  of  soil,  at  an  average  depth  of  about  two  feet,  the 
argillite  implements  occur.  This  is  the  condition  in  the 


46 

immediate  valley  of  the  Delaware  and  along  the  in-flowing 
streams,  where,  in  every  case,  there  was  a  deciduous  forest, 
but  inland,  where  pines  only  grew,  and  the  "soil"  was  re 
placed  by  sand,  there  the  surface  contains  both  argillite  and 
jasper,  but  what  are  the  real  conditions?  The  jasper  and 
quartz  are  essentially  confined  to  the  vicinity  of  the  water 
courses,  while  the  argillite  is  scattered  everywhere,  with 
out  reference  to  any  physical  condition  that  now  obtains. 
This  can  scarcely  be  an  accidental  happening. 

The  examination  of  many  a  so-called  "village  site,"  but 
what  was  probably  but  two  or  three  wigwams  with  a  single 
cooking-place  in  common,  has  shown  that  while  argillite 
occurs,  it  is  apt  to  be  but  a  small  proportion  of  it,  and  not 
unfrequently  it  is  entirely  absent.  I  have  explored  exhaust 
ively  more  than  one  such  site,  and  not  found  a  trace  of  any 
other  than  silicious  material,  and  not  always  where  the  finest 
examples  of  handicraft  occurred.  On  the  other  hand,  it  not 
unfrequently  happens  that  an  area  of  an  acre  or  more  of 
sand,  nearly  devoid  of  vegetation  and  exposed  for  years  to 
rain  and  wind  until  it  is  now  a  plain  that  has  every  appear 
ance  of  having  been  a  hillock  or  a  ridge,  and  here  argillite 
will  be  found  exclusively.  Surely  this  suggests  the  use  of 
that  material  prior  to  jasper  and  quartz,  for  we  know 
positively  these  were  in  use  last  or  just  previous  to  Euro 
pean  contact  and  the  introduction  of  fire-arms.  Argillite, 
it  is  true,  was  never  discarded,  but  it  was  not  likely  to  have 
been  used  exclusively  by  certain  groups  of  Indians  while 
others  made  use  only  of  silicious  stone.  That  would  indi 
cate  such  a  class  distinction  as  \ve  now  have,  but  was  cer 
tainly  unknown  in  Indian  time. 

Tabulating  a  series  of  "finds"  along  the  Delaware  river's 
immediate  shore  and  inland  for  a  distance  of  a  mile  or  more, 
it  was  found  that  in  proportion  as  jasper  and  quartz  were 
abundant,  there  was  also  the  finer  grades  of  pottery,  and 


47 

where  the  whole  range  of  worked  stone  was  present  there 
was  a  comparative  absence  of  argillite  objects,  except  the 
broad  blades,  probably  used  as  agricultural  implements ;  but 
where  argillite  arrow-points  and  knives  are  very  abundant- 
hundreds  of  them — there  was  little  else  and  only  the  rudest 
pottery.  This  was  determined  to  be  the  rule  after  years  of 
examinations  of  thousands  of  acres  of  land.  As  might  be 
expected,  there  are  some  notable  exceptions.  I  am  not, 
however,  disposed  to  look  upon  them  as  a  serious  objection 
to  the  view  I  have  expressed.  In  archaeology  as  elsewhere, 
insuperable  difficulties  as  they  seem  to  be,  constantly  arise, 
but  it  is  lack  of  comprehensiveness  of  knowledge  that  mag 
nifies  and  makes  over-much  of  trifling  matters.  Place  a 
sixpence  near  enough  your  eye  and  you  can  blot  out  the 
world.  Many  do  this  and  argue  accordingly.  There  are 
notable  instances  of  the  commingling  of  the  rudest  and  most 
elaborate  of  Indian  handiwork,  a  commingling  that  makes 
any  attempt  at  dissociation  apparently  hopeless,  but  this 
arises  from  taking  only  a  superficial  view  of  the  condition. 
The  general  character  of  the  locality  must  be  carefully  con 
sidered.  If  it  is  one  eminently  desirable  for  habitation  and 
has  been  so,  if  we  may  judge  from  what  now  is  found,  since 
early  post-glacial  or  even  in  strictly  glacial  time,  then  its 
supposed  continued  occupation  for  centuries  after  centuries 
need  excite  no  wonder,  and  the  traces,  as  claimed,  of  occupa 
tion  by  an  earlier  and  later  people  would  necessarily  gradu 
ally  accumulate,  just  as  almost  all  the  cities  of  importance 
along  our  inland  rivers  and  many  coast-wise  towns  were 
originally  Indian  villages.  The  features  that  attracted  the 
colonists  were  quite  the  same  as  those  that  influenced  the 
Indian. 

There  is  another  view  to  be  taken.  By  trenching  an 
Indian  village  site,  where  the  present  surface  presents  a 
hopeless  commingling  of  jasper  and  argillite,  the  story  of  the 


48 

earlier  or  argillite  period  is  told  so  plainly  that  no  doubt  can 
be  entertained  thereafter.  We  know  how  true  this  is  of 
ancient  cities  in  the  so-called  civilized  world,  and  the  applica 
tion  of  it  can  be  made  here  with  just  as  good  a  reason  and 
assurance  of  as  tangible  results. 

Again,  we  cannot  escape  erroneous  impression,  if  we  do 
not,  when  in  the  field,  consider  the  changes  effected  during 
the  last  three  centuries;  those  wrought  since  the  advent  of 
the  European  settler.  The  Indian  let  well  enough  alone. 
He  scarred  the  face  of  the  earth  but  little.  His  scattered 
fields  were  not  of  vast  extent  and  natural  plains  were  culti 
vated.  Extensive  clearings  of  the  forest  were  not  under 
taken,  and  when  fires  occurred,  Nature  repaired  the  damage 
in  her  own  time  and  way.  The  Indian,  in  short,  kept  in 
touch  with  Nature  just  as  closely  as  the  European  persist 
ently  holds  her  at  arm's  length  and  delights  in  destroying 
her  choicest  work.  Could  an  archaeologist  have  visited  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  in  advance  of  the  destroying  hordes 
that  have  blighted  it  now  more  effectually  than  ever  locusts 
swept  a  western  plain,  he  could  have  turned  the  later  pages 
of  the  earth  history  here  and  made  for  us  clear  as  noon-day 
much  that  now  is  dark  as  night.  They  were  not  torn  then 
nor  displaced,  but  lay,  one  upon  the  other,  in  proper  position. 
Now,  there  are  but  the  veriest  fragments  left,  and  it  is  an 
almost  hopeless  task  to  piece  them  together  and  be  able, 
here  and  there,  to  read  a  little.  What,  I  submit,  has  been  read, 
and  about  which  there  is  small  room  for  discussion,  is  that  so 
long  ago*  that  even  dreamy  tradition  has  framed  no  fabu 
lous  story  of  a  simple  fact,  man  appeared  upon  the  scene, 
and  from  that  distant  day  until  now  his  presence  has  not 
been  wanting. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  continue  with  illustrative  exam 
ples  showing  the  changes  since  maximum  glacial  activity 
that  have  occurred.  We  have,  if  my  o<wn  field  work — and 


49 

that  of  Mr.  Volk— has  not  grossly  misled  me,  both  an  earlier 
and  later  argillite  horizon — the  palaeolithic  and  the  pre- 
Indian.  It  is  analogous  possibly  to  the  traces  of  man  in  the 
loess  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska. 

[Since  these  pages  were  written,  my  attention  has  been 
called  to  an  article  on  Nebraska's  ancient  (?)  man  in  the 
Century  Magazine  for  January,  1907,  by  Prof.  H.  F. 


Compact 
Yellow 
Sand  4  ft. 


White  Sand 
4  in. 


££.*-.{ 

ni^?^  rtv;*^ '^  ?=??3^':^-^ 


BC^K2®Ai^c 


Pre-Glacial    . 
Gravel. 


vFug'  o  H"man  bones  breath  stratified  deposits,  discovered  by  E 
Volk  1899.  (See  also  Hrdlicka  on  Trenton  Crania.  Bui.  Amer  Mus' 
Nat  Hist  vol.  xvi,  pp.  23-62,  1902.) 

Osborne.  The  author  raises  our  hopes,  at  the  outset,  that 
here  we  have  something  definite,  at  last,  but  we  conclude  the 
perusal,  finding  ourselves  precisely  where  we  started  in  the 
dark. 

4  AB 


50 

A  foot-note,  however,  it  seems  to  me,  is  somewhat  sug 
gestive.  Prof  Osborne  calls  therein  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Holmes  suggests  the  Nebraskan  finds  as  of  the 
Blackfeet  Indian  type  of  cranium.  If  the  crania  of  the 
North  American  Indians  have  developed  into  "types"  and 
the  skull  of  a  Delaware  can  be  distinguished  from  that  of 
an  Iroquois,  and  those  of  Canada  from  those  of  Texas,  has 
not  the  Indian  been  on  the  continent  a  long  time  that  such 
differentiation  should  have  been  brought  about?  Is  evolu 
tion  such  a  rapid  process  that  bones  can  be  so  readily 
affected?  It  can  be  understood  that  soft  tissues  may  be 
influenced  promptly,  comparatively  speaking,  by  change  of 
environment,  but  is  this  equally  true  of  the  bony  frame 
work?  Would  evolution  be  as  likely  to  affect  a  bone,  be 
cause  the  demands  made  upon  it  varied  a  little  ?  It  is  always 
possible  to  hang  a  new  hat  on  an  old  peg,  and  we  generally 
do  so.  Why  may  not  Nature  have  much  the  same  old 
fashioned  way  of  doing  things?  But  competent  craniolo- 
gists  accept  the  "types"  of  skulls  as  demonstrable,  and  must 
it  not  have  been  a  very  long  time  since  the  changes  became 
established,  and  a  longer  one  before  the  change  commenced 
and  during  it?  A  fact  (  ?)  like  this  establishes  the  antiquity 
of  man  in  North  America  as  distinctly,  as  unequivocally,  as 
the  dispersion  of  his  artifacts  throughout  the  surface  soils 
and  their  less  frequent  occurrence  in  the  under-lying  gravel] 

Further  exploration,  I  do  not  anticipate,  will  lead  to  reach 
ing  any  other  conclusion,  and  leaving  these  phases  of  the 
subject,  what  now  of  the  antiquity  of  the  historic  Indians? 

INDIAN    LEGENDS. 

Legend,  as  the  Walum  Olam ;  inscribed  tablets,  as  the 
Lenape  stone  and  the  wild  guesses  of  the  closest  student, 
have  led  to  as  many  views  of  the  origin  and  antiquity  of  the 
Delaware  Indian  as  there  have  been  those  who  have  paid 
any  attention  to  his  existence,  and  their  name  is  Legion. 


The  Walum  Olam  has  been  translated,  but  far  too  much 
importance  is  placed  upon  it  as  accurate  history.  Legend, 
based  upon  facts,  the  particulars  of  which  have  been  long 
forgotten,  lost  all  sense  of  number,  as  applied  to  years. 
"Once  upon  a  time,"  as  in  our  fairy  tales,  should  be  the 
opening  words  of  the  Walum  Olam.  It  records  a  migration, 
but  does  not  specify  the  length  of  time  required  to  accom 
plish  it.  Names,  apparently  of  individuals,  may  as  reason 
ably  be  looked  upon  as  groups  of  individuals  or  as 
dynasties.1 

The  mysterious,  all  comprehensive,  encyclopedic  Lenape 
stone,  with  its  mastodon,  the  lightning's  stroke,  the  tragic 
end  of  man  and  beast  and  various  symbols  of  we  know  not 
what,  is,  if  all  else  of  Indian  handiwork  is  considered,  far 
beyond  the  skill  of  an  aboriginal  artist.  The  specimen  has 
been,  most  wisely,  relegated  to  the  limbo  of  obscurity.  All 
evidence,  centering  in  the  stone  itself,  points  to  its  fraudu 
lent  character. 

It  is  known  that  the  Indian  was  in  possession  when  the 
European  adventurers  came,  with  their  fair  assertions  and 
with  foul  intent.  This  is  all  we  know,  perhaps,  and  it  may 
be,  all  the  rest  is  speculation.  But,  in  less  than  three  cen 
turies,  much  colonial  history  has  become  vague.  The 
sharp  outlines  of  the  facts  have  been  worn  away  in  passing 
through  the  minds  of  generations  and  it  is  not,  probably,  at 
all  unreasonable  to  hold  that  a  broken  stone  or  a  fragment 
of  a  shell  speaks  with  greater  accuracy  than  the  so-called 
history  that  remains  to  us.  A  potsherd  lying  in  the  soil, 
to-day,  speaks  as  unmistakably  of  the  one-time  presence  of 


1  Certainly  nothing  can  be  more  unfortunate  than  for  the  archae 
ologist  to  turn  genealogist  and  so  closely  reckon  the  past  as  to  reach  the 
conclusion  that  the  Delaware  Indian  came  into  this  valley  some  four  or 
five  hundred  years  ago.  Absurdity  can  go  no  further.  Caution  should 
be  exercised  in  the  ascription  of  antiquity,  but  not  to  such  extent. 


52 

an  intelligent  man,  as  a  marine  shell  embedded  in  solid  rock 
is  eloquent  of  an  ancient  sea. 

It  is  a  legitimate  question  that  one  asks :  for  how  long  a 
time  was  the  Indian  in  possession?  As  he  did  not  know, 
and  when  questioned  could  give  no  reply  that  was  at  all 
helpful  to  the  earlier  seekers  for  information,  it  follows, 
logically,  that  our  only  resource  is  such  traces  of  himself  as 
remain,  comprehensively  considered.  "Indian  relics,"  as 
we  gather  them  from  the  surfaces  of  newly-ploughed  fields, 
suggest  time  past,  but  not  antiquity.  They  lead  us  little 
farther  back  than  the  English  coppers  and  colonial  coins 
with  which  they  are  associated.  The  circumstances  of  the 
occurrence  must  be  more  definite  than  accidental  bringing 
to  the  light  when  fields  are  cultivated.  Fortunately  such 
conditions  are  available  when  field-work  is  systematically 
undertaken.  Quite  as  prominently  as  hunting  and  fishing, 
agriculture  and  war  entered  into  the  lives  of -the  Delaware 
Indians,  did  the  fictile  art.  They  were  potters,  too,  of  no 
mean  skill.  To-day,  nothing  indicative  of  the  Indian  is 
more  widely  scattered  than  potsherds.  Curiously  enough, 
I  have  found  them  when  the  most  careful  search  resulted  in 
finding  nothing  more.  The  ware  was  not  a  mere  moulding 
of  raw  clay.  I  demonstrated  this,  some  years  ago,  by  test 
ing  samples  in  our  modern  porcelain  kilns.  It  was  shown 
that  the  material  had  been  so  prepared  that  it  resisted 
shrinkage  or  distortion  under  an  intense  heat;  one  far 
higher  than  the  Indian  potter  could  command. 

And  here,  the  question  at  once  arises,  whether  the  Indian 
is  an  immigrant,  who  forcibly  displaced  a  predecessor, 
absorbed  another  race  or  found  an  unoccupied  but  once 
inhabited  country,  and  howrever  coming,  did  he  bring  a 
knowledge  of  pottery  with  him?  Here  we  are  groping 
where  there  is  lack  of  light,  but  the  comprehensive  con 
sideration  of  the  subject,  for  which  I  have  contended, 


53 

throws,  I  think,  a  ray  of  light  into  the  Cimmerian  darkness, 
and  the  impression  is  born,  if  it  does  not  wax  very  strong, 
that  the  art  of  pottery  making  was  unknown  in  pre-Indian 
time  or  very  rudely  practiced,  and  that  the  Indian  was  not 
an  accomplished  potter  when  he  began  his  career  in  this 
region. 

Be  all  this  as  it  may,  whenever  we  find  traces  of  man  that 
include  potsherds;  prior,  of  course  to  European  coloniza 
tion,  we  may  feel  assured  that  we  have  to  do  with  the  Lenni 
Lenape  or  Delaware  Indians.  When  such  traces  of  early 
man  are  not  so  associated,  we  may  have  evidence  of  inhabi 
tation  here  of  a  pre-pottery  age.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
add,  no  trace  of  pottery  ever  occurs  in  the  glacial  gravel  or 
those  earliest  of  post-glacial  deposits,  of  sand,  small  pebbles 
and  an  occasional  boulder. 


THE   INDIAN   VILLAGE. 

What  I  have  recognized  as  a  "village  site"  is  such  evi 
dence  of  continued  occupation  as  baked  and  charcoal- 
charged  earth,  due  to  the  presence  of  fire  on  one  wrell 
defined  spot  for  a  considerable  period ;  an  abundance  of  heat- 
cracked  pebbles,  showing  that  hot  stones  were  used  to  bring 
water  to  the  boiling  point ;  often  a  distinctly  paved  hearth ; 
potsherds  innumerable;  bones,  often  charred,  of  animals 
used  as  food — including  human  (?)  bones;  many  broken 
implements  of  stone  and  some  of  bone;  and  often,  imple 
ments  that  appear  to  have  been  lost,  forgotten  when  a  mov 
ing  took  place  or  were  discarded  for  like  objects  of  better 
design  or  finish.  Usually  we  find  one  and  often  two  or  three 
hand  mills  or  querns  for  crushing  maize,  seeds  and  nuts, 
their  Tachquahoakan,  and  in  some  instances  the  upper  as 
well  as  lower  stone  is  found. 


54 

Under  peculiarly  favorable  circumstances,  there  can  be 
traced  with  some  slight  degree  of  convincement,  the  precise 
wigwam  sites  surrounding  the  fire-place,  but  this  latter  is 
not  always  the  centre  of  a  circle.  A  good  deal  depended 
upon  the  "lay  of  the  land"  and  occasionally  it  appeared  as  if 
a  protected  fire  and  oven  was  used  rather  than  an  open  one, 
with  pots  in  the  embers  and  hot  ashes.  It  happens,  also, 
that  we  sometimes  find  traces  of  a  long-continued  fire,  with 
bushels  of  heat-cracked  pebbles  and  not  another  trace  of 
man's  one-time  presence.  Here,  it  is  probable,  pottery  was 
baked,  and  we  have  in  these  traces  all  that  remains  of  an 
Indian's  primitive  kiln,  though  what  part  was  played  by  the 
burnt  pebbles,  I  do  not  see  at  all  clearly.  Again,  we  may 
find  pottery  and  a  few  arrow-points  and  two  or  three  stone 
drills  and  scrapers.  If  the  ground  shows  no  discoloration  or 
alteration  of  texture,  such  as  fire  produces,  the  occupancy 
of  the  spot  was  likely  but  temporary.  On  the  other  hand, 
mills  or  querns  are  often  found,  often  weighing  from  thirty 
to  fifty  pounds,  without  any  trace  of  other  object  of  human 
interest  near  them.  If  a  "village"  once  existed,  every  ves 
tige  has  been  removed.  I  suggest  that  these  were  permanent 
querns  and,  when  in  use,  were  surrounded  by  nut-bearing 
trees,  the  fruit  of  which  was  gathered  in  season  and  carried 
to  the  "village"  nearest  by. 

It  quite  frequently  happens  that  a  single  form  of  imple 
ment  will  be  found  in  large  numbers  and  in  such  close^  as 
sociation  that  the  suggestion  of  burial  for  purpose  of  tem 
porary  concealment  arises.  Such  a  cache,  if  scattered  by  the 
plough,  gives  in  time  the  appearance  of  a  village  site,  by 
reason  of  the  abundance  of  the  objects  now  scattered  over 
a  considerable  area,  but  the  absence  of  potsherds  shows  that 
the  objects  found  are  not  evidence  of  a  one-time  dwelling 
site  or  even  a  period  of  transient  occupation.  When  an 
abundance  of  arrow-points  and  spear-heads,  and  no  other 


55 

form  of  stone  implement  associated  with  them,  occur  on  a 
comparatively  limited  area,  the  impression  of  a  battle  hav 
ing  been  fought  naturally,  perhaps,  occurs  to  the  collector ; 
but  no  unmistakable  trace  of  a  pre-historic  battle-field  was 
ever  discovered  or  is  likely  to  be.  Certainly,  we  have  no 
record — now  historic — of  any  Lenapean  Napoleon  who  on 
the  sandy  plains  of  South  Jersey  met  his  Waterloo.  The 
single  arrow-point  that  we  now  find  as  we  ramble  about 
the  fields  was  more  likely  to  have  been  shot  at  a  deer  than 
at  a  human  foe,  and  large  numbers  in  a  little  space  more 
than  probable  is  but  the  dispersion  of  a  cache,  begun  when 
the  plough  first  up-turned  the  sod  and  has  continued  ever 
since.  Battle,  murder  and  sudden  death  were  no  doubt 
common  enough,  but  all  this  is  but  inferential,  based  upon 
the  knowledge  we  now  have  of  savage  life,  but  this  state 
of  affairs  once  obtaining,  does  not  call  for  elaborate  battle 
fields  that  we  can  now  trace.  The  palaeontologist  can  build 
up  an  animal  from  a  single  bone,  but  from  a  single  arrow- 
point  to  elaborate  a  tragedy  is  not  the  province  of  a  practical 
archaeologist. 

If  the  village  site,  as  positively  determined,  was  a  feature 
of  the  present  surface,  it  might  be  said  of  them,  that  they 
were  occupied  and  abandoned  at  or  near  the  date  of  the 
arrival  of  the  European  settler,  but  such  is  far  from  being 
true  of  them.  They  occur,  distinctly,  under  such  a  variety 
of  conditions  that  they  establish  a  range  in  time  of  vast 
significance.  Some  are  so  deeply  buried  that  changes  have 
taken  place  since  their  abandonment  which  required  a  long 
series  of  years  to  accomplish.  Others  again  have  been 
abandoned  and  re-occupied,  and  a  layer  of  undisturbed  soil, 
gradually  accumulated,  lies  between  the  relics  of  the  earlier 
and  the  later  occupation.  More  significant,  perhaps,  than 
all  else,  is  the  abundant  evidence  of  protracted  occupation 
in  situations  that  are  now  wholly  uninhabitable.  Beauti- 


56 

fully  illustrative  of  this,  are  the  village  sites  in  the  present 
low-lying  meadow  land  along  the  river,  and  which  is  subject 
to  overflow  at  any  time;  a  heavy  rain,  even,  bringing  the 
river  to  a  freshet  stage.  These  meadows  are  now  but  five 
feet  above  high-water  mark.  Digging  to  that  depth  or  even 
less,  in  some  places,  we  come  to  water  and  find  also  ashes, 
charcoal,  pottery,  implements  in  abundance  and  the  bones 
of  animals  used  as  food.  All  we  find,  at  the  horizon  of 
the  water  and  below  it,  goes  to  show  that  the  village  site  was 
one  long  and  continuously  occupied,  and  very  marked  must 
have  been  the  physical  changes  to  have  rendered  the  place 
uninhabitable,  as  it  now  is,  and  to  account  for  the  accu 
mulation  of  from  three  to  five  feet  of  alluvium  that  now 
covers  it.  Nothing  was  buried,  but  all  gradually  inhumed. 
The  assertion  that  the  spot  was  temporarily  occupied  and 
abandoned  at  short  notice  and  re-occupied  when  conditions 
again  became  favorable,  is  but  another  example  of  that 
gross  ignorance  of  the  real  conditions  which,  as  when  treat 
ing  of  palaeolithic  man  in  the  same  region,  characterizes 
its  author.  Archaeological  impressions  should  never  be 
based  on  a  single  discovery,  but  too  often  attempt  is  made 
to  balance  a  cannon  ball  on  gossamer.  Those  who  oppose 
all  evidences  of  antiquity  deliberately  blind  themselves  and 
then  insist  that  no  one  can  see.  To  preserve  the  slightest 
semblance  of  consistency,  they  are  forced  to  do  so. 

No  upland  village  site,  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge, 
has  proved  so  fruitful  of  evidence  of  advance  in  savage  life 
as  those  of  this  meadow  tract,  so  exhaustively  and  scien 
tifically  explored  by  Mr.  Volk.  They  exhibit  the  Indian  at 
the  high-water  mark  of  his  career  and  certainly  such  a  peo 
ple  would  never  have  dwelt  on  so  unsanitary  a  spot  as  it 
now  is  and  from  wThich  they  were  constantly  likely  to  be 
driven  by  a  rise  in  the  river.  Especially  unlikely  is  the 
choosing  of  such  a  location,  if  then  as  now,  when  not  a 


57 

thousand  yards  distant  they  could  have  built  their  homes 
at  an  ideal  spot,  fifty  feet  above  the  river  and  with  an  out 
look  that  commanded  a  wide  reach  of  the  river  valley.  Un 
questionably,  when  the  pottery-using,  flint-chipping  Indian 
came  to  dwell  here,  the  river,  comparing  that  time  with  the 
present,  was  not  the  same;  the  meadows  were  not  as  they 
are  now,  the  creek  near  by — now  nearly  silted  up — that  then 
flowed  directly  into  the  river,  was  quite  another  stream. 
Just  what  the  changes  have  been  or  how  brought  about, 
is  for  the  geologist  to  decide,  but  vast  changes  there  have 
been,  and  Mr.  Volk's  view  that  the  village  site  he  unearthed 
was  one  of  significant  antiquity  cannot  be  successfully  con 
tradicted. 

The  purely  gratuitous  assumption  of  Mr.  Holmes  that 
because  one  piece  of  pottery  found  by  Mr.  Volk  was  deco 
rated  after  the  manner  of  Shawnee  fictile  ware,  that  such 
pottery  dated  from  the  almost  historic  period  of  the  Shaw- 
nee  settlements  along  the  Delaware,  has  no  bearing  what 
ever  on  the  antiquity  of  the  site.    The  fact  is,  the  ornamen 
tation  of  pottery  as  made  here  was  so  indefinitely  varied  and 
at  times  truly  artistic,  that  near  approaches  to  the  specimen 
found  by  Mr.  Volk  are  not  unknown  and  that  one  vessel 
might  readily  have  been  designed  and  decorated  by  a  Del 
aware  who  had  never  seen  or  perhaps  heard  of  a  Shawnee. 
Inter-tribal  commerce,  too,  must  be  taken  into  account. 
Considering  that  I  have  discovered  Catlinite  pipes  and  beads, 
that  must  have  come  from  Minnesota,  and  obsidian  arrow- 
points,  flakes  and  scrapers  that  either  came  from  Utah  or 
Oregon,  and  that  many  a  southern  and  western  form  of 
implement,  ornament  and  pipe  has  been  found  hundreds  of 
miles  distant  from  where  it  was  made,  it  is  not  at  all  incon 
ceivable  that  even  pottery,  fragile  as  it  is,  might  have  been 
brought  from  a  distance,  or,  even  a  fragment  of  a  vessel,  the 
decoration  of  which,  taking  the  fancy  of  a  potter  here,  have 
been  copied. 


58 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  village  site  was  also  a  place  of  burial, 
Now,  while  the  Indians  in  New  Jersey  had  no  one  or  fixed 
burial  custom,  as  every  archaeologist  who  has  worked  in  the 
field  well  knows,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  one  of  the 
methods  of  disposing  of  the  dead  \vas  by  immersion.  I  hold 
that  no  better  evidence  can  be  had  that  this  meadow  tract 
was  practically  an  upland  one,  during  Indian  time  and  not 
subject  to  such  frequent  and  complete  overflow,  than  that  it 
was  used  for  burials  as  well  as  a  dwelling  site.  The  elevated 
plateau  so  near  by,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  is  full 
of  graves.  They  may  be  expected  \vhenever  one  elects  to 
dig,  and  no  trench  of  any  considerable  length  but  exposes 
one  or  more.  The  accounts  of  early  visitors  to  this  country 
contain  many  a  notice  of  burial  customs,  but  none  of  where 
the  body  was  placed  in  water. 

It  is  of  first  importance,  finally,  to  consider  the  extent  of 
this  village  site,  the  home  not  of  a  few  but  many  families 
and  the  vast  amount  of  material  Mr.  Volk  and  others  have 
recovered  from  the  spot,  all  of  which  goes  to  show  that  the 
period  of  occupation  of  this  river-side  and  creek-side  site 
was  a  very  protracted  and  continuous  one. 

Still  another  consideration  of  village  sites,  and  one  per 
haps  of  more  importance  in  its  bearing  on  the  question  of 
the  antiquity  of  the  Indian  than  all  else,  is  the  fact  that  as 
yet  there  has  been  no'  strictly  argillite  village  discovered 
such  as  I  have  described  as  "Indian."  All  such  are  char 
acterized  by  much  pottery,  by  artistically  fashioned  pipes, 
jasper  and  quartz  implements,  polished  stone  celts,  gorgets, 
amulets,  trinkets  for  personal  adornment  and  the  quern. 
Argillite  implements  were  always  present,  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  use  of  this  material  was  never  abandoned.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  village  site  proper,  with  its  fire-place,  hearth, 
potsherds  and  argillite  implements  exclusively,  or  traces  of 
a  single  habitation  or  even  a  number  of  them  that  was 


59 

marked  only  by  argillite  and  no  pottery,  has  not  yet  been 
found  and  I  suggest  that  after  an  experience  of  more  than 
thirty  years  a-field  and  finding  nothing  of  the  kind  is 
evidence  of  some  value,  negative  though  it  be,  and  worthy 
of  attention.  I  believe  such  argillite  villages  never  existed. 
The  pre-Indian  user  of  argillite  was  strictly  a  nomad  and 
more  of  a  savage  than  the  Indian,  and  the  wider  distribu 
tion  of  argillite  than  quartz  and  jasper  is  due  to  his  wander 
ing  habit.  He  appears  not,  as  an  "argillite"  man  and 
unacquainted  with  pottery,  to  have  acquired  the  village 
habit. 


INDIAN    SHEU.-HSAP. 


A  feature  of  the  archaeology  of  the  region  herein  treated 
of  and  more  particularly  so  of  the  seaboard  of  the  State, 
parallel  to  the  river  valley  but  fifty  miles  away,  and  not 
unknown  to  many  an  inland  stream,  whether  flowing  into 
the  Delaware  or  the  Atlantic,  is  the  shell-heap. 

The  late  Dr.  Samuel  Lockwood,  years  ago,  gave  an 
excellent  account  of  those  he  had  examined  with  critical 
care,  near  Keyport,  N.  J.,  and  many  references  have  been 
made  to  the  deposits  of  shells  through  man's  agency,  occur 
ring  along  the  coast  wherever  the  edible  molluscs  were 
readily  obtained  in  quantities,  but  the  age  of  these  artificial 
deposits  has  been  overlooked  by  recent  writers  who  have 
essayed  so  earnestly  to  modernize  the  pre-European  occupa 
tion  of  the  country. 

Not  one  of  the  very  many  shell-heaps  that  I  have 
examined  but  must  be  ascribed  to  the  historic  Indian,  but 
the  beginning  of  many  such  shell-heaps  was  in  remotely  pre 
historic  time.  Some,  indeed,  so  far  as  I  could  determine, 
contained  no  trace  of  pottery,  but  not  one  but  had  quartz 
and  jasper  chips  and  broken  implements.  Argillite  was 


6o 

often  present,  but  I  could  never  find  it  exclusively  so.  Shell- 
heaps,  then,  it  is  fairly  safe  to  presume,  are  all  Indian  in 
origin,  but  since  their  beginning,  there  has  been  a  decided 
sinking  o*f  the  shore  line  and  the -base  of  more  than  one  well- 
defined  heap  has  been  found  to  be  at  least  four  or  five  feet 
below  low-water  mark.  These  heaps  were  started  on  what 
at  the  time  was  firm  earth  and  dry  earth,  for  the  Indian  was 
no  lover  of  a  damp  or  clayey  soil.  It  is  true,  the  coast  has 
been  said  to  be  sinking  pretty  steadily  and,  as  a  geological 
phenomenon,  at  no  laggard's  pace,  but  we  have  no  evidence 
that  such  subsiding  has  been  progressing  with  no  remission. 
Very  true,  more  than  one  original  light-house  stood  where 
now  is  open  sea,  but  such  sinking  of  the  land  as  the  shell- 
heap  hints  of,  was  not  a  matter  of  yesterday  and  enormously 
farther  back  in  time  than  loss  of  shore-line  within  the 
memory  of  man. 

We  can  see,  as  we  stand  on  one  of  these  ancient  shell- 
heaps,  a  different  country  surrounding  us,  a  different  fauna 
prowling  in  the  adjacent  forest.  We  can  see  the  Indian 
from  the  main  land  coming  hither  for  his  winter's 
supply  of  shell-fish  and  trudging  back  again  to  his  forest- 
hidden  home.  The  teeming  past  is  widely  unrolled  on  such  a 
spot,  and  nowhere  else  can  we  get  a  better,  a  more  compre 
hensive  view  of  the  Indian's  career  than  by  these  great  heaps 
of  shells  that  year  after  year,  layer  upon  layer  was  builded 
up,  to  remain,  as  they  do  still,  enduring  monuments  to  these 
wild  red  men  of  the  woods. 

Returning  again  to  the  village  sites  deeply  buried  now  in 
the  present  flood-plain  of  the  river,  we  find,  when  careful 
search  is  instituted,  something  very  nearly  akin  to  a 
coastwise  shell-heap.  The  mussels — Unionida — were  not 
despised  as  food.  Many  a  considerable  layer  of  the  shells, 
with  ashes,  charcoal,  fire-cracked  pebbles  and  potsherds,  is 
found,  and  the  significance  of  the  distance  below  the  present 


6i 

surface,  at  which  they  occur,  must  not  be  overlooked.  The 
turf  above  them  is  not  the  rapid  heaping-  of  mud  displaced 
from  a  nearby  point,  during  a  flood.  Absolutely  no  trace  of 
cataclysmic  action  is  to  be  traced.  All  goes  to  show  a  gradual 
accumulation  of  soil,  and  a  new  surface  formed  that  covered 
the  shells,  and  it  was  in  time  itself  covered,  so  that  many  a 
defined  stratum  now7  rests  upon  the  spot  where  the  mussel 
hunter  gathered  his  harvest  from  the  river  or  the  tributary 
creek. 

There  is  some  evidence  of  a  considerable  difference  in  the 
ages  of  these  fresh-water  heaps  of  shells,  but  none  are  so 
distinctly  old  as  to  lack  unmistakable  traces  of  the  Indian. 
All  have  potsherds,  but  these,  in  one  instance,  on  Crosswicks 
Creek,  were  so  rude  and  only  a  few  argillite  flakes  found 
with  them,  and  the  depth  of  the  accumulation  of  shells, 
taken  together,  were  eloquent  of  a  past  so  remote  that  the 
Indian  himself  may  be  looked  upon  as  a  feature  of  antiquity 
and  not  a  recent  comer.  It  cannot  be  objected  that  the  water 
of  the  river  was,  if  we  go  back  significantly  far,  too  cold  for 
molluscan  life,  for  deep  in  the  gravel,  at  an  inland  point, 
Mr.  Volk  and  I  found  a  valve  of  a  Unio  and  since  then  other 
specimens  have  occurred  in  like  position. 

The  shell-heaps  on  the  seacoast  point  unmistakably  to  a 
remote  past,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  much  the  same  antiquity 
can  be  denied  the  similar  deposits  in  the  river  valley. 

There  is  still  another  phase  of  this  feature  of  the  one 
time  savage  life  prevailing  here.  Marine  shells  are  not 
uncommon  at  a  horizon  just  below  the  alluvial  deposit,  still 
forming,  that  now  constitutes  the  immediate  flood-plain, 
where  the  river  is  hemmed  in  by  a  bluff  that  permits  the 
highest  stages  of  water  only  to  reach  its  base.  This  allu 
vium  is  almost  as  tenacious  as  clay  and  sustains  an  exceed 
ingly  rank  vegetation  and  vigorous  forest  growth.  It  over 
lies  a  nearly  white  sand  and  small  pebbles,  much  as  the 
present  river  bed  now7  is. 


62 

Were  these  shells  but  few  in  number,  we  might  well  con 
clude  that  they  had  been  brought  hither  by  the  Indians  when 
returning  from  the  coast,  or  some  point  on  the  bay  shore, 
more  than  one  hundred  miles  down  the  river,  but  these  shells 
are  too  abundant  and  the  species  too  varied  and  many  too 
small  to  be  of  value  as  implements  or  as  food.  Their 
presence  rather  suggests  that  the  salt  water  reached,  in  at 
least  earliest  Indian  times,  as  far  as  now  the  tide  extends. 
If  so>  a  marked  change,  indeed,  has  taken  place  in  the  levels 
of  land  and  water,  and  all  since  palaeolithic  —  and  his  imme 
diate  successor,  pre-Indian  —  man  had  passed  away.  We 
need  not  wonder  at  the  antiquity  of  the  Indian,  but  may 
marvel,  indeed,  that  any  one  should  question  it.  With 
these  marine  shells  are  potsherds,  arrow-points  and  charred 
bones  of  deer,  bear,  and  other  mammals  and  many  fishes. 


OBLITERATED   BROOKS. 

The  fields  are  far  from  level  on  the  plateau  that  parallels 
the  river  on  its  eastern  side.  They  have  for  centuries,  as 
fields,  been  subjected  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  innumerable 
intersecting  brooks  and  by  many  considerable  streams  that 
flow  directly  into  the  river.  The  result  has  been  to  create 
broad  valleys  like  those  of  Crosswicks  and  Assunpink 
Creeks.  These  have  their  Indian  village  sites  scattered  for 
miles  along  the  immediate  banks  of  the  streams.  A  far  less 
prominent  feature  of  the  land,  as  it  is  to-day,  is  the  spring 
brook,  seemingly  now  as  it  has  ever  been;  but  this  is  an 
^error.  The  brook  may  prove  of  much  archaeological  signifi 
cance,  when  we  come  to  trace  the  country's  history  back  to 
•pre-colonial  times.  Some  of  these  small  brooks  are  extra 
ordinarily  tortuous  and  several  miles  in  length.  The  slight 
depression  in  the  surface  along  their  course  is  so  incon 
spicuous  that  we  scarcely  notice  it,  until  at  length,  it  nears 
the  face  of  the  bluff  facing  the  river  valley.  Here  the  brook 
bank  becomes  precipitous  and  the  stream  at  last  enters  the 


63 

flood-plain  of  the  river  through  a  short  but  deep  ravine, 
having  worn  its  way  down  to  near  tide  level  from  the 
plateau's  surface,  fifty  to  one  hundred  feet  above  it. 

As  simple  brooks,  these  little  water  courses  would  not 
figure  importantly  in  Indian  history,  but  it  would  appear 
that  some  of  them  were  considerable  streams  centuries  ago. 
The  deforesting  of  the  land,  the  draining  of  the  swamps 
and  cultivation  of  the  soil  have  aided  in  lessening  the  vol 
ume  of  water,  and  changes  with  which  man  was  not  associ 
ated  have  undoubtedly  taken  place.  Whatever  the  causes, 
the  evidence  is  irrefutable  that  many  an  insignificant  brook 

i 


-——--• 


Fig.  2.  Cross  section  of  obliterated  brook.  Drawn  from  photographs. 
Artifacts  were  found  at  junction  of  the  sand  and  clay,  beneath  the  broad 
band  of  clay,  which  was  overlaid  by  a  deposit  of  washed,  white  sand. 
This  was  covered  by  a  foot  of  sand  and  as  much  of  the  surface  soil. 

of  to-day  was  a  considerable  stream  in  days  gone  by,  and 
where  we  can  step  across  the  trickling  brook  an  Indian 
might  easily  have  floated  his  canoe.  Then,  there  are  other 
beds  of  upland  streams  that  have  been  dry  for  ages,  but 
still  they  can  be  traced. 

Cross  sections  made  where  these  narrow  valley-like 
depressions  of  the  present  surface  occur,  tell  the  whole  story 
so  far  as  the  one-time  brooks  are  concerned,  and  in  prac 
tically  every  case,  it  is  an  archaeological  story.  The  mod 
ernist  may  have  much  to  say  about  intrusive  objects,  but 
this  will  not  hold.  These  cross-sections  show  stratification 
and  of  material,  too,  that  did  not  permit  the  passage  of 
artifacts.  See  Fig.  2. 


64 

One  such  cross-section  exhibited,  just  beneath  the  present 
soil,  a  deposit  of  tenacious  clay,  it  overlying  a  compact  layer 
of  nearly  white  sand  and  this  in  turn  resting  on  coarse 
pebbles.  The  pebbles  had  been  the  bed  of  the  stream  for  a 
time,  then  the  sand  gradually  accumulated  and  at  last  clay, 
washed  from  a  great  deposit  near  the  surface  and  miles 
away,  had  been  brought  down  and  settled  where  I  had 
found  it,  at  a  bend  in  the  channel  of  the  ancient  brook.  The 
archaeological  interest  of  it  all  consisted  in  the  occurrence 
of  pebble-hammers  and  chips  or  flakes,  artifacts  as  unmis 
takably  as  an  arrow-point.  To-day,  there  is  not  a  trace 
upon  the  surface  of  the  field  indicating  it  was  traversed  by 
a  broad  and  shallow  stream.  A  brook,  at  present,  runs  not 
far  away,  that  may  be  the  same  stream  deflected  from  an 
older  course.  Often,  in  mid-summer,  it  is  nearly  dry,  and 
again,  after  heavy  rainfall  is  almost  a  raging  torrent.  Such 
brooks  are  common,  but  this  one  has  a  history  not  common 
to  them  all.  It  finds  the  meadow  or  flood-plain  level  after 
passing  through  a  ravine,  fifty  feet  in  depth.  In  October, 
1903,  the  river  was  so  swollen  that  the  flood-plain  was  sub 
merged  and  for  about  two  hundred  yards  of  its  length,  the 
brook  was  reversed,  so  to  speak,  the  river  flowing  up  the 
gorge.  In  this  we  had  a  return  simply  to  the  original  or 
an  earlier  condition,  when  the  present  meadows  were  per 
manently  under  water,  and  the  river  here  a  wide  lake.  When 
this  brook,  then,  was  a  wider  stream  and  before  it  had  cut 
its  way  down  to  the  flood-plain  level,  Indians  were  dwelling 
near  its  banks,  and  at  a  depth  of  something  more  than  six 
feet,  Mr.  Volk1  found  human  bones,  either  intentionally 
buried  or  drifted  to  the  spot  during  a  freshet. 

It  certainly  cannot  be  said,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  that  the 
changes  that  have  taken  place  have  all  occurred  within  his- 

1  Crania  of  Trenton,  N.  J.  By  Ales  Hrdlicka.  Bulletin,  Amer.  Mus.. 
Nat.  Hist.  New  York,  1902. 


65 

toric  time.  These  upland  brooks  may  well  have  been  spark 
ling  in  the  sunlight  when  the  Delaware  was  yet  a  glaciated 
stream.  They  were  the  drainage  outlets  of  the  high,  dry, 
habitable  land  that  extended  from  the  river  to  the  sea.  They 
are  much  diminished  since  that  distant  day  and  some  have, 
as  already  pointed  out,  wholly  disappeared.  The  majority 
are  now  reduced  to  the  minimum  of  continuance.  May  it 
not  be  that  many  a  stream,  to  which  the  Indians  gave  no 
name  save  "Sipotit" — a  little  brook — was  a  water  course 
of  importance  to  the  argillite  man  of  an  earlier  day? 

Could  we  reconstruct  the  surface  of  the  region  and  be 
hold  the  land  before  the  river  had  retired  to  its  present  bed, 
we  would  see  marked  differences  and  to  our  vast  relief,  no 
commingling  of  argillite  and  jasper  and  hopeless  confusion 
of  artifacts  ancient  and  comparatively  modern. 


THE;  ADVANCE  OF  SKIU,. 

Attempts  to  trace  advance  in  skill,  whether  as  chippers  of 
flint  or  manufacturers  of  pottery,  have  not  been  at  all  fruit 
ful  of  satisfactory  results.  It  can  as  safely  be  said  that  some 
were  skillful  and  others  not,  in  what  they  undertook,  and  so 
the  great  range  from  rude  to  elaborate  of  all  their  handi 
work.  Much,  too,  depended  upon  the  material  available, 
and  yet  when  various  localities  are  compared  and  arrow- 
point  makers'  workshop  sites  are  examined  critically,  an  im 
pression  is  invariably  had  that  possibly  the  ruder  work  did 
indicate  an  earlier  day.  I  would  not  be  inclined  to  place 
much  value  on  this,  were  it  not  that  some  localities  have  in 
their  surroundings,  the  depth  at  which  the  artifacts  occur 
and  every  other  circumstance  appertaining  to  the  "find," 
what  may  be  called  "collective  evidence  of  age" ;  something 
very  real  to  the  explorer  when  in  the  field,  just  as  when 
a  jasper  and  an  argillite  horizon  are  compared,  but  unfortun- 
5  AB 


66 

ately  not  transmissible  to  the  reader  by  either  words  or  pic 
tures. 

Whatever  the  ultimate  conclusion  of  the  practical 
archaeologist,  there  is  no  escaping  the  comprehensive  one 
that  the  historic  Indian,  comparatively  recent  comer  as  he 
is,  is  to  be  treated  archseologically  as  well  as  historically. 
Among  the  many  hundreds  of  grooved  stone  axes  that  I 
have  gathered,  one  very  recently  found  is  coated  with 
limonite  and  in  this  respect  differs  in  no  way  from  millions 
of  coated  pebbles  found  in  the  so-called  Columbia  gravel. 
It  was  not  found  in  a  deposit  of  bog  ore  or  near  any  spring 
whose  waters  are  surcharged  with  the  metal  in  solution,  but 
on  a  high  and  dry  field,  where  no  other  moisture  was 
reached  save  rain-fall.  This  axe  flatly  contradicts  what  I 
have  stated  in  a  preceding  page  and  have  always  maintained, 
that  no  distinctly  "Indian"  object  was  so  encrusted,  but 
argillite  objects  were  often  found  in  this  condition.  I  let 
the  two  statements  stand,  but  submit  this  axe,  one  of 
marked  artistic  design  and  finish,  as  evidence  of  the  antiquity 
of  the  Delaware  Indian. 

Mr.  Volk  inclines  to  the  belief  that  the  grooved  axe  is  a 
comparatively  recent  implement  of  the  Indian,  as  he  failed 
to  find  it  in  any  of  the  trenches  he  dug  and  from  which  such 
a  vast  amount  of  archaeological  material  was  taken.  I 
should  say,  from  what  I  have  observed,  that  it  is  not  of 
common  occurrence  in  graves,  where  the  ungrooved,  pol 
ished  celt  is  often  met  with. 

The  limonite,  as  deposited  on  this  axe,  could  not  have 
been,  I  am  assured,  rapidly  deposited.  The  chemical  change 
involved  was  one  requiring  a  long  lapse  of  time.  Why  all 
the  other  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  Indian  relics 
should  have  escaped,  I  do  not  know.  They  appear  to  have 
done  so  and  so  far  are  held  to  be  not  so  very  old :  this  single 
axe  tells  a  far  different  story  and  strengthens  the  view  that 


67 

as  surely  as  that  not  all  relics  could  be  of  the  same  age,  so 
there  may  have  been  a  decided  advance  between  the  first 
Indian  implements  and  those  last  made. 


CONCLUSION. 

Having  set  forth  as  clearly  as  it  was  within  my  power  to 
do,  the  several  reasons  for  the  belief  I  have  so  long  enter 
tained  as  to  the  antiquity  of  man  in  the  valley  of  the  Dela 
ware,  I  desire,  in  conclusion,  to  refer  briefly  to  a  condition 
obtaining  which  perhaps  has  more  significance  than  all  else 
that  can  be  produced  bearing  upon  the  subject.  This  con 
dition,  most  happily  not  a  matter  of  dispute,  is  the  vast 
quantity  and  wide  dispersion  of  what  we  know  collectively 
as  "Indian  relics,"  but  which  I  have  endeavored  to  separate 
into  wholly  distinct,  and  in  a  measure,  unrelated  classes. 

Subjecting  to  closest  scrutiny  and  without  bias,  alike  the 
upland  field  and  the  low-lying  meadow,  the  forest  and  the 
swamp;  tracing  the  course  of  every  inland  creek  and  the 
shore-line  and  islands  of  every  river;  taking  into  compre 
hensive  and  possibly  exhaustive  consideration  every  condi 
tion  under  which  the  traces  of  pre-historic  man  are  found 
and  contemplating  their  number,  literally  millions,  there  are 
but  two  conclusions  possible  at  which  the  archaeologist  can 
arrive;  either  there  was  a  dense  population  that  was  here 
for  not  a  long  period,  or  a  sparse  population  which  occupied 
the  territory  under  consideration  for  very  many  centuries. 

A  dense  population  calls  for  what  we  may  truly  call 
Indian  cities,  but  of  such  \ve  have  not  been  able  to  find 
satisfactory  traces.  It  is  true  that  a  place  situated  as  is  the 
present  city  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  at  the  head  of  tide  water 
would  naturally  be  a  centre  of  commercial  activities  and 
interests.  Such  localities  as  surely  and  logically  attract  as  a 
magnet  does  iron  filings.  It  has  been  a  town  site  always, 


68 

we  might  say,  and  as  it  attracted  the  aborigine,  attracted 
the  European  settler  and  never  was  founded  by  an  individual 
as  have  been  most  towns  of  which  we  have  knowledge  as  to 
their  origin.  The  falls  of  the  Delaware — its  original 
English  name — has  better  claim  to  be  called  a  centre  than 
a  town.  People  there  were  continually  coming  and  going, 
but  the  resident  population  may  have  been  small.  It  was  a 
busy  place  but  not  what  we  now  call  a  city.  It  possibly 
never  knew  quiet  until  the  Indian  was  dispossessed  and  then 
it  slumbered  peacefully  for  two  hundred  years. 

The  Indian,  depending  largely  upon  hunting  and  not 
inconsiderably  upon  agriculture,  had  no  need  for  a  large 
town  and  it  is  doubtful  if  the  most  populous  ever  ran  much 
into  the  thousands,  but  where  the  location  was,  by  reason 
of  its  convenience,  i.  e.,  easy  of  access  by  both  canoe  and 
over-land,  it  became  a  fixed  condition  from  the  very  begin 
ning.  As  such,  we  can  understand  why  the  relics  we  collect 
should  be  in  such  numbers  and  beaten  so  deeply  into  the 
soil  that  some  have  reached  at  length  to  a  depth  that  nears 
the  horizon  of  an  earlier  people. 

With  one  such  former  site  of  an  Indian  town  I  have  long 
been  familiar  and  am  thoroughly  convinced  of  its  moderate 
population,  extending  over  centuries  rather  than  a  dense 
population  which  tarried  here  but  a  number  of  years.  The 
relics  that  we  now  find,  the  varying  character  of  the  graves 
and  the  significant  depth  of  the  cooking  sites,  all  give  an 
impression  of  antiquity  and  suggest  improvement  in  certain 
directions  during  the  continuance  of  the  town,  as  such. 

It  may  be  said  that  every  stream  of  sufficient  volume  to 
permit  of  canoe  navigation  had  a  "town"  upon  its  banks, 
and  villages  and  single  settlements  or  a  single  family  were 
at  every  desirable,  if  not  at  every  available  point,  and  here 
relics  are  still  found  in  abundance,  but  between  each  of  these 
many  streams  lies  a  wide  stretch  of  land,  then  heavily 


69 

forested,  and  what  of  such  territory?  Certainly  it  would 
require  a  long  time  for  the  personal  possessions  of  these 
aboriginal  villagers  to  be  scattered  over  the  entire  surface  of 
the  State,  and  they  are  so  scattered  and  in  numbers  that 
have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of 
their  one-time  owners,  and  I  do  not  include  the  omnipresent 
arrow-point  in  this  consideration. 

A  word  now  with  reference  to  them.  There  are  over  five 
million  acres  in  New  Jersey,  and  if  we  allowed  one  arrow- 
point  to  an  acre,  this  number,  brought  together,  would  fill  no 
trivial  space  in  a  museum  and  would  be  impressive  in  more 
than  one  direction,  but  while  there  are  many  acres  where 
they  seem  to  be  absent  and  possibly  may  be,  but  I  am  not 
convinced  of  it,  there  are  others  where  these  same  little 
arrow-points  are  so  abundant  that  we  are  probably  within 
bounds  in  allowing  at  least  one  to  the  acre,  for  the  whole 
State.  We  leave  it  to  those  who  are  statistically  inclined  to 
estimate  the  time  required  to  make  and  to  lose  them  and  the 
probable  population  that  used  these  five  millions  of  arrow- 
points,  bidding  them  remember  always  that  the  ruder  argil- 
lite  artifacts  outnumber  them,  perhaps,  ten  to  one. 

But  little  need  be  said  in  this  final  summing  up  of  this  dis 
cussion  of  a  vexed  question.  That  the  region  was  pro 
foundly  affected  by  the  glacial  conditions  of  thousands  of 
years  ago,  no  one  can  deny ;  that  an  arctic  fauna  wandered 
over  the  plains  that  escaped  the  encroaching  ice,  no  one 
doubts ;  but  was  man  a  member  of  that  fauna  ?  My  claim;  is 
that  he  was.  Time  passed  and  other  conditions  came  into 
being  and  man  of  less  primitive  mould  replaced  the  ice-age 
nomad.  He  passed,  and  the  Indian  we  all  know,  the  his 
toric  Red  man  came  upon  the  scene.  Looking  back  to  the 
day  when  I  first  picked  up  an  arrow-point  and  gave  it 
serious  thought,  and  recalling  all  pertaining  to  ancient 
American  man  that  I  have  seen  since  then,  the  record  of  the 


past  does  not  seem  to-day  one  difficult  to  read.  Indeed,  I 
hold  that  it  never  has  been,  and  maintain,  as  I  have  done 
since  the  questioning  of  man's  antiquity  in  this  region 
began,  that  the  manifold  attempts  to  modernize  all  traces  of 
man  on  the  eastern  coast  of  North  America  can  safely  be 
relegated  to  the  limbo  of  misdirected  energy.  Studied  in 
the  proper  spirit  and  after  the  needful  preliminary  study  of 
.archaeology  as  a  whole,  the  student  will  find  himself,  when 
in  the  field — ever  a  more  desirable  place  than  the  museum- 
face  to  face  with  evidences  of  an  antiquity  that  is  to  be 
measured  by  centuries  rather  than  by  years. 


Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 


No.  II 


BY 

Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


"  The  sky  will  take  on  a  deeper  blue,  the  sun  will  shine  more  brightly, 
the  world  will  everywhere  appear  more  beautiful,  when  theory  is  reduced  to 
its  proper  position  as  a  servant,  and  facts  alone  are  acclaimed  our  masters. " 


1908 


TREI 

MACCRELLISH    &    QuiGLEY,    PRINTERS. 
1908 


Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 


No.  II 


BY 

Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


"  The  sky  will  take  on  a  deeper  blue,  the  sun  will  shine  more  brightly, 
the  world  will  everywhere  appear  more  beautiful,  when  theory  is  reduced  to 
its  pioper  position  as  a  servant,  and  facts  alone  are  acclaimed  our  masters." 


1908 


TRENTON,  N.  J. 
MACCREUJSH  &  QUIGLEY,  PRINTERS. 

1908 


PREFACE. 


IT  HAS  been  maintained  that  the  term  Archaeology  does  not 
apply  to  North,  Central  or  South  America,  but  that  this 
considerable  portion  of  the  earth's  habitable  surface  was  not 
a  scene  of  human  activity  until  Asia,  Europe  and  Africa  and 
the  isles  of  the  South  Seas  had  been  so  long  populated  that 
humanity  was  an  old  and  not  very  creditable  story,  and  then 
about  the  dawn  of  what  we  know  as  the  historic  period  some 
wandering  unfortunates  from  other  lands  found  some  one 
of  the  three  Americas,  and  finally  drifted  into  the  other  two. 
According  to  these  authors,  and  they  are  about  all  who  have 
given  attention  to  the  subject,  the  history  of  America  is 
about  the  heaviest,  dreariest,  most  somnolent  matter  ever 
preserved  in  print,  until  Columbus  made  his  discovery,  or 
possibly  from  the  supposed  visit  of  the  Norseman,  four  or 
five  centuries  earlier. 

All  this  may  be  true,  but,  happily  for  those  archseologically 
inclined,  the  probability  of  its  so  being  is  still  an  open  ques 
tion,  and,  despite  the  earnest,  and  we  hope  sincere,  efforts 
of  the  ethnologists  to  modernize  every  phase  of  the  subject, 
the  thought  will  persist  in  coming  to  the  fore,  when  field- 
work  is  in  progress,  can  all  this  be  within  the  range  of  his 
tory,  or,  at  most,  on  the  shadowy  border  of  it,  just  prior  to 
Columbus  sighting  land  in  the  Antilles? 

Whatever  may  be  the  merits  of  the  question,  whether  or 
not  Nature  makes  any  sudden  leaps  by  way  of  varying  the 
monotony  of  supposedly  very  orderly  and  leisured  evolution, 
it  does  not  seem  creditable  that  the  Americas  should  have 
remained  unknown  until  all  other  lands  were  occupied,  and 


that  even  people  should  have  accustomed  themselves  to  the 
rigors  of  superlative  heat  and  cold  before  the  tempting  plains 
and  forests,  with  temperate,  if  not  irreproachable,  climate 
should  be  discovered.  If  all  this  happened,  as  asserted, 
how  finally  was  the  continent  reached,  and  from  what 
other  country  did  the  discoverers  come?  Unfortu 
nately,  the  ethnologists  have  been  too  busy  with  details  of 
pottery  ornamentation,  origin  of  earthworks  and  genesis  of 
problematical  objects  of  Indian  handiwork  to*  take  up  so 
considerable  and  really  important  a  subject  as  Man's  origin 
in  America.  They  admit  they  do  not  know,  and  it  is  under 
stood  among  the  elect  that  they  do  not  care.  The  chief 
canon  of  their  ethnologic  law  is  that  whatsoever  might  have 
happened  yesterday  could  not,  by  any  possible  means,  have 
happened  the  day  before.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  a  day  will 
come  when  the  pen  and  spade  can  lie  down  in  peace,  and 
what  is  found  by  the  man  in  the  field,  and  what  is  said  of  it 
by  the  man  in  the  museum,  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and,  better  than  either,  nothing  but  the  truth. 

It  is  not  a  scientific,  which  is  simply  a  common  sense, 
procedure  to  consider  the  conditions  of  a  limited  area,  such 
as  a  single  river  valley,  without  correlating  these  with  those 
of  the  whole  country,  or,  at  least,  a  significantly  large  part 
of  it.  Certainly  it  is  wholly  without  warrant  to  give  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  consideration  as  to  archaeological  or 
ethnological  significance  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  some 
thing  separate  and  apart  from  the  land  north,  west  and 
south  of  it.  The  general  pre-history  of  the  country,  so  far 
as  it  has  been  deciphered,  tends  undoubtedly  to  show  that  the 
general  spread  of  the  Indians,  as  we  know  them,  occurred  a 
long  while  ago,  sufficiently  long  ago  to  bring  about  change 
of  language  and  customs,  and  if  exploration  is  a  natural 
impulse,  then  it  is  inherently  improbable  that  so  considerable 
and  readily  accessible  an  area  as  the  valley  of  the  Delaware 


and  immediately  adjacent  country  should  have  been  unsus 
pected,  unknown,  unvisited  and  unexplored  until  a  few 
centuries  ago,  when  everywhere  about  it,  save  its  eastern 
seaboard,  was  the  home-land,  and  long  had  been,  of  Algon 
quin  and  Iroquois. 

Many  parts  of  the  world  were  unknown  to  the  civilized 
nations  of  Europe  and  to  us  until  within  quite  recent  time. 
Discoveries  have  been  made  in  our  own  day,  but  nowhere, 
unless  some  coral  island  in  the  Pacific  ocean,  was  it  of  unin 
habited  land.  Some  species  of  the  genus  homo  was  there, 
or  very  recently  had  been.  So,  too,  if  the  Lenni  Lenape 
knew  nothing  of  the  valley  of  the  Delaware,  where  they 
finally  became  a  prominent  factor  of  aboriginal  politics,  until 
some  five  or  six  hundred  years  ago,  did  they  or  not  find  the 
region  uninhabited  then,  and,  if  so,  had  it  not  been?  It  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  what  has  been  seen  and  found  here  in 
the  two  centuries  since  the  Indians'  departure,  with  the  eth 
nologist's  view  of  extreme  modernity. 

The  reader  who  patiently  plods  through  the  manifold 
chapters  of  the  Jesuit  Relations,  and  even  when  he  turns  to 
the  less  practical  but  no  less  earnest  relations  of  the  Mora 
vian  missionaries  among  the  so-called  Delaware  Indians, 
cannot  avoid  vexation  that  these  enthusiasts  were  so  pro 
foundly  concerned  with  undemonstrable  problems  and  so 
little  concerned  with  the  actualities  they  confronted.  The 
Indian  in  his  home,  unaffected  as  yet  by  the  blight  of  an 
exotic  civilization  and  his  mind  untroubled  by  vagaries  of 
foreign  mystics  that  were  wholly  beyond  his  powers  of  com 
prehension,  as  they  have  ever  been  a  profitless  source  of 
wordy  worrying  and  without  tangible  results  where  they 
originated — this  man,  this  distinct  species  of  man,  had  he 
been  exhaustively  studied  by  those  who  had  the  golden 
opportunity,  would  not  now  be,  to  so  great  a  degree,  a  mys 
tery  in  many  respects  and  the  fruitful  source  of  unfruitful 
discussion. 


Collating  all  that  has  been  recorded  by  these  Moravian 
missionaries,  who  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  daily  lives  of 
the  continent's  native  race,  we  are  more  impressed  with  what 
they  failed  to  make  note  of  than  with  what  they  seemed  to 
consider  of  first  importance.  It  was  this  overlooking  of 
the  details  of  daily  existence  that  has  resulted  in  later  time 
to  so  much  speculation  as  to  the  probabilities  and  led  to  the 
preparation  of  ponderous  tomes  that  too  often,  on  matters 
of  most  interest,  leave  us  at  the  colophon  where  we  were,  at 
the  title  page,  in  ignorance.  The  author  with  a  pet  idea  is 
elaborately  exploited  and  the  Indian  lost  sight  of.  Neces 
sarily,  the  opportunity  once  afforded  can  never  re-occur. 
The  Indian  that  was,  is  not.  The  archaeologist,  to-day,  re 
places  the  historian  of  nearly  three  centuries  ago  and  his  is 
no  light  task,  if,  gathering  the  fragmentary  evidences  of  the 
Indian's  one-time  presence,  he  endeavors  to  reconstruct  the 
past.  He  feels 

"like  one 
Who  treads  alone 
Some  banquet  hall  deserted." 

Yet,  wandering  a-field  or  patiently  digging  where  a  wig 
wam  once  has  stood,  he  can  scarcely  refrain  from  giving  his 
imagination  reasonable  play  and  placing,  when  he  finds  a 
relic,  its  fashioner  before  him,  in  suggestive  attitude  and  sur 
roundings.  The  fauna,  the  flora,  the  physical  conditions  of 
the  region's  pre-historic  days  pass  vividly  before  his  eyes. 
For  the  moment,  the  past  is  the  present  and  the  archaeologist 
is  himself  a  red-skinned  rover  of  centuries  long  gone.  Such 
an  experience  is  delightful  if  one's  heart  is  really  in  his  work, 
but  it  is  equally  dangerous.  The  imagination  is  a  most  valu 
able  servant,  but  a  bad  master.  It  delights  in  the  demolition 
of  fact  and  enthrones  fancy,  however  tottering  the  throne 
may  be. 


He  who  finds  an  Indian  relic  to-day  is  justified  in  asking 
himself  what  was  its  use?  Did  he  not  do  so,  the  object  has, 
to  him,  no  greater  significance  than  a  pebble  or  a  clod  of  dirt. 
He  must  be  concerned  about  it  beyond  the  recognition  of  its 
artificial  origin,  but  unless  caution  now  steps  in,  he  may 
wander  anywhere  but  in  the  right  direction.  It  is  nearer  to 
certainty  than  merely  probable  that  could  some  of  the  old- 
time  Indians  return,  they  would  be  astounded  at  the  strange 
stories  told  of  them  and  righteously  indignant  at  the  theories 
that  have  been  propounded  concerning  their  innocent  selves. 
The  archaeologist  is  ever  between  the  devil  and  the  deep  sea, 
fearing  to  suggest  too  much  and  equally  afraid  of  asserting 
too  little. 

Unquestionably  the  Indians  that  held  in  possession  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  and  all  the  land  eastward,  extending 
to  the  sea,  and  westward  to  the  Alleghenies,  were  a  people 
with  a  history  when  the  portentous  shadow  of  the  European 
fell  upon  their  homes.  They  had  had  a  career,  and  now,  the 
insidious  white  man  among  them,  this  was  to  close  in  sorrow, 
to  the  eternal  shame  of  the  intruder. 

The  question  arises :  Can  this  career  be  traced  by  a  study 
of  those  imperishable  relics,  that,  lying  in  and  on  the  earth, 
are  mute  but  none  the  less  eloquent  witnesses  to  man's  exist 
ence  here  when  the  continent  was  unknown  to  the  more  ad 
vanced  races  of  Europe  ?  The  date  of  man's  appearance  on 
this  globe  has  not  yet  been  determined,  and  if  science  is  not 
wholly  astray  the  fateful  day  of  over-stepping  the  line 
dividing  brute-hood  from  man-hood  cannot  be  determined 
save  in  a  vague,  approximative  way  and  equal  uncertainty 
hovers  over  the  continental  divisions  of  the  globe.  When  first 
in  Asia,  Africa  or  Europe,  when  first  in  the  continental 
islands  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  is  as  undeterminable  as  when 
that  day  dawned  and  men  stood  upon  an  American  shore,  or, 
far  less  probably,  ceased,  somewhere  on  the  continent  to  be 


8 

pithecoidal  with  anthropoidal  tendencies  and  became  anthro 
poidal  with  pithecoidal  tendencies,  which,  by  the  way,  he  has 
never  lost.  That  mankind  originated  in  America  has  been 
seriously  considered  and  the  question  ingeniously  if  not  very 
convincingly  argued,  but  what  we  know  of  the  history  of  the 
world  as  a  whole,  tends  to  combat  this  view.  Whether  man 
originated  at  some  one  or  at  several  centres  is  another 
mooted  point.  My  own  belief  is  that  evolution  at  more  than 
one  locality  and  the  most  marked  races,  four  at  least,  now 
existing  are,  as  we  ordinarily  understand  consanguinity,  un 
related.  That  is,  relationship  reaches  farther  back  than  the 
date  of  the  acquisition  of  manhood,  and  here  we  rest. 

My  concern,  in  this  brochure,  is  with  man  in  North 
America,  and  in  one  very  little  corner  of  it,  at  that,  and  not 
with  the  suggestive  ape-like  creatures  of  tertiary  time.  Their 
bones  are  not  crumbling  in  American  soil,  it  is  safe  to  say, 
or  some  examples  thereof  would  be  resting,  ere  this,  in  the 
depressing  atmosphere  that  envelops  a  museum  shelf.  In 
brief,  we  cannot  leap  into  the  dark  and  landing  on  a  firm 
footing,  travel  over  the  route  that  America's  aborigine  took 
when  he  commenced  his  long  upward  and  onward  progress. 
It  is  left  to  the  archaeologist  to  reverse  the  direction  and 
taking  up,  as  he  may,  in  their  order,  the  long  line  of  misty 
and  musty  yesterdays,  see  how  far  he  can  go  on  this  ghoul- 
like  journey.  It  is  his  cheerful  pastime  to  play  with  dead 
men's  bones  and  ponder  over  whatsoever  these  bones,  when 
clothed  in  quick  flesh,  left  behind  them.  Success  may  attend, 
but  no  great  measure  of  it  has  been  accorded  any  one  indi 
vidual.  The  result  of  archaeological  labor,  to  date,  is  grati 
fying  save  in  this,  there  is  more  that  we  would  like  to  know 
than  there  is  confidently  held  that  we  do  know. 

Snakes  do  not  charm  birds  nor  does  any  species  swallow 
its  young,  of  that  we  may  be  positive,  but  antiquity  never 
fails  to  charm  mankind  and  all  too  often  steals  away  his 


judgment.  Did,  however,  we  know  that  every  vestige  of 
these  one-time  people  was  a  product  of  their  skill  just  prior 
to  the  advent  of  their  irresistible  enemy,  the  European,  inter 
est  would  soon  flag  when  looking  over  an  array  of  pots  and 
kettles,  implements  of  agriculture  or  weapons  of  war  and 
of  the  chase.  One  object  of  its  kind  would  be  too  like 
another,  and  our  imperious  appetite  for  novelty  would  not  be 
appeased.  Not  so,  as  matters  are.  No  two  objects  are  alike 
except  in  a  general  and  really  unimportant  way,  but  what  is 
of  paramount  importance  is  that  as  relics  are  gathered, 
whether  a  single  object  or  a  significantly  associated  series 
of  different  objects,  such  finds,  however  frequent,  do  not 
give  us  the  same  impression.  History  does  not  repeat  itself 
in  this  instance.  An  arrow  point  in  one  field  may  stand  for 
nothing  but  itself,  while  in  another  field  the  like  object  may 
be  meaningful  beyond  our  grasp  at  a  moment's  notice.  We 
are  reminded,  in  the  latter  case,  that  it  is  the  surroundings 
as  well  as  the  object  that  have  meaning,  and  unless  they  are 
fully  considered  before  the  object  is  removed,  the  fact  that  is 
of  value  beyond  any  number  of  objects  vanishes  forever. 

That  all  objects  should  be  practically  of  the  same  age  is, 
of  course,  absurd,  but  how  much  older  are  the  first  objects 
made  on  the  spot  than  those  made  near  the  day  of  the  In 
dian's  departure?  It  is  a  question  that  cannot  be  answered  in 
an  off-hand  manner.  To  do  so  has  been  the  fashion  of  those 
associated  with  one  archaeological  institution,  and  a  tendency 
thereto  has  not  been  lacking  in  other  directions.  It  is 
simply  avoiding  the  main  feature  of  interest  centering  in 
American  archaeology,  and  reduces  the  subject  to  the 
commonplace  level  of  historical  research. 

That  the  relics  of  a  defined  locality,  such  as  this  of  the 
Delaware  valley,  carefully,  and,  as  near  as  possible,  ex 
haustively  gathered,  do  show  a  suggestive  interval  that 


IO 


comes  within  the  scope  of  antiquity  is  my  own  impression, 
and  to  demonstrate  the  probability,  if  not  certainty  of  this, 
is  my  present  purpose.  In  brief,  when  did  the  Indian  come 
to  the  Delaware  valley ;  how  many  centuries  elapsed  before 
he  was  driven  out  of  it  ?  Did  palaeolithic  man  of  the  glacial 
age  and  his  descendants,  "argillite"  man,  die  out  and  so 
leave  the  country  uninhabited  until  the  pottery-making,  flint- 
chipping  Indian  came  upon  the  scene?  Was  there,  instead, 
a  continuous  occupation  from  the  Ice  Age  to  the  arrival  of 
Europeans  in  the  sixteenth  century  or  earlier?  When  an 
Indian  relic  is  exhibited  at  a  gathering  of  scientific  folk  or 
attention  is  called  thereto,  where  more  fortunate  people  are 
together,  there  are  always  endless  questions  asked,  but  very 
rarely  is  there  an  intelligent  reply.  No  one  seems  willing  to 
commit  himself  to<  an  opinion  and  rarely  indeed  does  a  pro 
fessional  archaeologist,  dealing  with  matters  American,  have 
the  courage  of  his  convictions. 

In  the  "Handbook  of  American  Indians/'  Part  I  (Wash 
ington,  D.  C.),  p.  61,  we  find  the  following:  "From  the 
Glacial  gravels  proper  there  has  been  recovered  a  single 
object  to  which  weight  as  evidence  of  human  presence  during 
their  accumulation  is  attached;  this  is  a  tubular  bone,  re 
garded  as  a  part  o>f  a  human  femur  and  said  to  show  glacial 
striae  and  traces  of  human  workmanship,  found  at  a  depth 
of  twenty-one  feet.  On  this  object  the  claim  for  the  Glacial 
antiquity  of  man  in  the  Delaware  valley  and  on  the  Atlantic 
slope  practically  rests."  This  fanfaronade  by  W.  H.  H.  is 
about  as  near  a  fair  statement  as  we  might  expect.  Bracketed 
as  having  discussed  this  find  are  the  names  Putnam,  Mercer 
and  Holmes,  not  one  of  whom  could  have  given  the  subject 
exhaustive  study,  and  significantly,  all  three  uncompromising 
opponents  of  the  view  of  antiquity. 

Mr.  Holmes  rejects  all  other  asserted  evidence  from  the 
same  locality.  If  we  "regard"  the  bone  as  human — there  is 


II 

really  no  doubt  of  it — the  probability  that  the  man  who  once 
had  exclusive  possession  thereof  was  a  creature  of  what  we 
know  as  material  wants.  The  vegetable  world  did  not 
supply  them  all,  and  so  weapons  of  some  sort  were  necessary 
to  subdue  the  animal  world.  It  is  of  some  significance,  I 
claim,  that  more  than  twenty  years  before  this  fragment  of  a 
femur  was  found  by  Mr.  Volk,  the  writer  had  found  a  con 
siderable  number  of  artificially  shaped  stones,  and  mostly  so 
shaped  as  to  be  of  use  in  capturing  such  animals  as  dwelt  in 
and  about  the  icy  waters  that  were  laying  down,  in  times  of 
flood,  the  gravel  wherein  this  ancient  fragment  of  a  femur 
was  found. 

Wholly  ignored  by  Mr.  Holmes,  but  elaborately  discussed 
by  competent  craniologists,  is  the  human  skull  that  was  taken 
many  years  ago  from  practically  the  same  gravel  deposit  as 
the  femur,  and  about  one  mile  northwestward  or  up  the  river 
from  it.  Its  history  shows  conclusively  that  it  was,  when 
found,  a  constituent  part  of  the  gravel  deposit.  There  is 
no  possibility  of  its  having  been  an  intrusive  object,  nor  that 
the  gravel  had  been  disturbed  by  any  freshet  or  flood  of 
comparatively  recent  time. 

The  first  appreciative  notice  of  this  skull  is  by  Dr.  Frank 
Russell,  in  the  American  Naturalist,  Vol.  XXXIII,  No.  386, 
February,  1899,  P-  J43-  The  author  discusses  the  human 
remains  purporting  to  have  been  obtained,  to  date,  from 
gravel  deposits,  and,  therefore,  assumed  by  the  discoverers 
thereof,  to  be  of  greater  age  than  any  surface-found  remains 
or  relics.  Dr.  Russell  considers  the  skull  from  the  cranio- 
logical  standpoint  only,  and  concludes :  "From  the  evidence 
supplied  by  the  Trenton  skulls  themselves  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable  that  they  are  of  modern  Indians,  probably  of  the 
Lenni  Lenape." 

Before  considering  some  of  the  author's  arguments  in 
favor  of  this  particular  skull's  modernity,  let  the  question  of 


12 

the  value  of  position  as  indicative  of  antiquity  be  taken  up. 
This  Trenton  skull  was  found  at  a  depth  of  twelve  feet  in 
distinctly  gradually  deposited  gravel,  if  one  may  judge  from 
the  character  of  gravel  exposures  made  within  a  short  dis 
tance  from  it,  cellar  and  sewer  excavations.  The  stratifica 
tion  is  not,  so  far  as  observed,  pronounced,  but  there  are 
strata  or  seams  o<f  sand,  not  strictly  horizontal  that  suggest 
alternate  periods  of  torrential  flow  and  comparative  quies 
cence.  The  mass  as  a.  whole  is  very  compact  and  boulders 
of  large  size  are  everywhere  scattered  through  it. 

It  is  evident,  of  course,  that  if  an  object  is  of  positively 
known  origin,  its  age  is  fixed  by  that  fact,  and  the  depth  at 
which  it  may  occur  when  an  excavation  is  made  is  of  no 
significance  It  is  necessarily  an  intrusive  object.  Brickbats 
from  the  bottom  of  a  well  sunk  in  Columbia  gravel  are  post- 
Indian  in  spite  of  strenuously  asserted  position  when  discov 
ered;  but  this  rule  applied  by  Dr.  Russell  to  crania  will 
hardly  hold  good,  for  if  the  femur  found  by  Mr.  Volk  is 
human,  doubtless  the  individual  it  suggests  was  the  pos 
sessor  of  a  skull,  and  human  skulls  may  be  very  old  and  yet 
very  modern  in  contour.  Now,  this  Trenton  cranium  is  not 
of  usual  shape  and  simply  because  it  comes  within  the  range 
of  possibilities  among  Lenni  Lenape  crania,  does  not  prove 
that  it  is  one.  It  varies  to1  a  marked  degree  from  the  ordi 
nary  skull  as  found  in  Indian  graves,  and  these  vary  among 
themselves  to  a  considerable  degree.  The  principal  point  is, 
does  not  the  fact  of  its  position  when  discovered  set  aside  all 
probability  of  its  being  an  intrusive  object?  A  cranium, 
however  thick,  and  this  one  is  abnormally  so,  would  inevi 
tably  be  crushed  beyond  recognition  if  transported  by  a  flow 
of  water  of  sufficient  force  to  carry  with  it  such  material  as 
that  with  which  it  was  surrounded,  i.  e.,  if  water  alone  was 
the  transporting  agency.  Dr.  Russell  expresses  the  opinion 
that  a  short  journey  of  this  kind  was  practicable,  consider- 


13 

ing  the  specimen's  structural  strength.  I  do  not.  But  it  is 
very  supposable  that  the  specimen  was  frozen  in  a  mass  of 
mud  and  sand,  and  this  congealed  mass  carried  as  the 
accompanying  gravel  was  might  travel  a  long  distance  and 
meet  with  no  accident. 

As  received  by  the  gentleman  from  whom  I  obtained  it, 
it  was  partly  filled  by  sand  and  a  slight  admixture  of  clay 
that  ensured  cementation  of  the  mass.  This  suggests  that  it 
was  an  old,  fragmentary  skull  prior  to  its  journey  to  the 
gravel  deposit  in  South  Warren  street,  Trenton,  where  it 
again  came  to  light. 

Again,  Dr.  Russell  is  wholly  at  sea  concerning  the  physical 
geography  of  the  region,  and  I  am  sorry  to  admit  largely 
because  of  the  obscurity  of  a  communication  of  mine  to  him. 
He  remarks :  "Though  the  surface  of  the  ground  where  the 
skull  was  found  is  twenty  feet — it  is  thirty  feet — above  the 
ordinary  level  of  the  Delaware,  the  locality  has  been  over 
flowed  in  recent  years,  so  that  existing  agencies  could  have 
swept  skull  and  gravel  into  place  and  buried  them  beneath 
strata  of  sand  and  gravels  and  huge  ice-rafted  boulders.  The 
length  of  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  skull  was  deposited 
in  the  gravels  is  probably  very  great,  though  of  course  it  is 
not  geologically  ancient."  A  most  unwarranted  conclusion 
and  gratuitous  assumption.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  while  the 
area  where  the  skull  was  found  is  within  the  present  flood- 
plain  limit  of  the  river,  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  flood  in 
hundreds  of  years  has  done  more  than  wash  the  surface  for 
a  few  hours,  as  I  have  once  known  it  to  do  during  the  dam 
ming  of  the  river  temporarily  by  choking  with  ice  the  present 
channel  of  the  stream.  The  present  surface  of  the  ground 
was  covered  with  water,  but  not  a  trace  of  earth-removal  was 
discernible  when  the  waters  retired.  No  flood  is  on  record, 
covering  this  area,  that  had  power  to  transmit  coarse  gravel 
or  even  fill  slight  hollows  with  fine  sand.  The  day  of  such 


floods  was  not  SO'  decidedly  post-glacial  that  it  comes  within 
the  historic  period  or  the  indefinite  pre-historic  period  when 
man  was  unquestionably  a  dweller  by  the  river's  side.  This 
skull,  be  it  remembered,  was  over-laid  by  twelve  feet  of 
coarse  material,  and  the  floods  that  transported  this  gravel 
and  "ice-rafted  boulders"  were  those  when  there  was  occa 
sional  re-occurrence  of  torrential  floods  that  only  characterize 
the  glacial  period  in  the  days  of  its  activity.  All  possibility 
of  recent,  i.  e.f  historic  rather  than  glacial  transportation  and 
re-deposition  is  absolutely  out  of  the  question,  considering 
the  physical  conditions  that  now  obtain.  If  right  in  this, 
then  the  skull  in  question  is  of  geological  significance  rather 
than  historic,  despite  its  craniological  conformation. 

Again,  the  old  bed  of  the  Assunpink  creek,  to  which  I 
referred  in  my  communication  to  Dr.  Russell,  and  upon 
which  he  builds  with  much  confidence,  his  conclusion,  was 
a  bed  of  the  stream  at  the  initium  of  its  career  as  a  water 
course,  when  no  longer  a  part  of  that  greater  stream  which 
made  what  is  now  New  Jersey,  southeast  of  it,  an  island. 
This  was  obliterated  during  the  closing  centuries  of  the 
glacial  period,  when  a  slight  elevation  brought  about  the 
present  Atlantic  ocean  and  Delaware  valley  water-sheds. 
The  ancient  creek  was  a  result  of  such  vast  but  gradual 
change  and  the  channel  of  the  creek  at  present  was  formed 
and  the  older  one  gradually  obliterated  so  long  ago*,  that  to 
date  the  deposition  of  the  skull  in  question  back  to  the  exist 
ence  of  the  creek's  earlier  or  initial  channel  is  to  ascribe  to 
it  an  antiquity  that  is  more  than  vaguely  pre-historic.  It 
carries  it  to  a  past  so  distant  that  it  concerns  the  geologist 
fully  as  much  as  the  archaeologist. 

Dr.  Ales  Hrdlicka,  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History,  Vol.  XVI,  Article  III,  pp. 
23-62,  New  York,  February  6,  1902,  has  given  this  same 


skull  most  scholarly  consideration.  He  says  of  it :  "To 
diagnose  the  exact  ethnic  character  of  this  specimen  is  a 
problem  full  of  difficulties.  *  *  *  the  skull  can  hardly 
be  considered  a  normal  one.  *  *  *  All  that  may  be 
said  positively  is  that  in  its  general  form,  as  well  as  in  its 
main  measurements  and  indices  (q.  v.) ,  the  *  *  * 
skull  approaches  much  more  the  crania,  of  the  Lenape  than 
it  does  those  from  Burlington  county  and  Riverview  ceme 
tery;  in  fact  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  these  latter. 
*  It  seems  to  me  equally  impossible  to  positively 
declare  that  the  skull  either  is  or  is  not  a  Lenape  skull." 
It  may  be  grossly  presumptive  for  me  to  comment  upon  the 
decision  of  such  an  authority,  but  I  cannot  withhold  my  con 
viction  that  the  position  of  the  skull  when  found  goes  a  long 
way  toward  demonstrating  that  it  is  not  the  cranium  of  a 
Delaware  Indian  of  distinctively  post-glacial  time. 

Dr.  Hrdlicka's  most  recent  utterance  with  reference  to 
the  other  supposedly  ancient  skulls  refers  them  to  the  people 
of  the  northwestern  coast  of  Germany  and  Holland.  There 
is  a  certain  degree  of  pertinence  in  this  suggestion,  as  New 
Jersey  had  Swedes  and  Dutch  settlers  within  its  boundaries, 
prior  to  the  English.  Skulls,  not  Indian,  but  old  in  a  historic 
sense,  are  not  unlikely  to  occur,  and  even  dissociated  crania, 
for  more  than  one  Swede  and  Dutchman  was  captured  by  the 
Indians  and  murdered,  possibly  eaten,  and  so  isolated  skulls 
of  such  captives  can  be  explained ;  but  all  this,  not  only  pos 
sible  but  probable,  does  not  affect  the  cranium  found  in  deep 
gravel,  which  is  not  a  normal  "Indian"  skull.  No  reference 
to  European  settlers  can  explain  its  occurrence,  and  while 
one  swallow  does  not  make  a  summer,  one  such  find  as  this 
cranium  does  establish  man's  antiquity  in  the  Delaware 
valley.  If  not,  archaeology  is  a  sham  and  not  science. 

It  has  never  been  made  quite  apparent  why  a  change  in 
cranial  characteristics  should  take  place,  because  of  change 


i6 

of  conditions.  If  the  first  human  beings  in  the  valley  of  the 
Delaware  were  the  ancestors  of  the  "Indians"  later  in  pos 
session,  would  not  the  shaped  head  that  stood  them  well  in 
the  days  of  glacial  stress,  have  met  their  requirements  when 
more  genial  conditions  obtained  ?  The  present  Eskimos  are 
neither  fools  nor  idots  nor  ape-like,  and  their  experiences  are 
what  confronted  man  in  the  ancient  days  of  the  Delaware 
valley.  It  would  be  fortunate  indeed  if  some  now  living  had 
as  level  heads  as  had  their  forbears. 

Another  year  a-field  since  my  previous  "Archseologia" 
was  published  has  resulted  in  the  collection  of  much  inter 
esting  and  suggestive  material,  and  has  resulted  also  in  many 
a  conclusion  being  reached  bearing  upon  the  archaeological 
significance  of  the  collection  formed  the  past  year,  as  a 
whole.  Some  of  these  conclusions  have  been  touched  upon 
in  my  earlier  report,  and,  as  they  seem,  to  my  mind,  to  be 
worthy  of  more  extended  notice,  I  have  prepared  the  follow 
ing  pages,  and  grateful  acknowledgment  is  here  made  to  M. 
Taylor  Pyne,  Esq.,  of  Princeton,  N.  J.,  for  the  encouraging 
interest  he  has  taken  in  my  labors  and  the  pecuniary  assist 
ance  so  cheerfully  given,  which  has  made  the  publication  of 
this  report  possible.  C.  C.  A. 

THREE  BEECHES,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  Jan.  4,  1907. 


ARCH^EOLOGIA 

NOVA 
C^ESAREA 


2    AB 


II 


A  STUDY  OF  ARROW-POINTS. 

WHEREVER  traces  of  the  Indian  occur  the  chances  are 
that  the  first  intimation  of  their  presence  will  be  the 
finding  of  an  arrow-point.  Other  objects  of  aboriginal 
handiwork  may  be  overlooked,  and  some  primitive  forms 
not  recognized  as  other  than  products  of  natural  forces,  but 
the  arrow-point  never  fails  to  catch  the  eye.  It  is  something 
so  radically  different  from  all  of  the  quaint  shapes  that 
pebbles  acquire  from  exposure  to  moving  sand  and  water, 
or  even  exposure  to  frost  and  heat,  that  curiosity  is  excited, 
and  the  discovered  specimen  is  picked  up  and  admired.  Un 
fortunately  too  often  there  it  ends.  It  is  recognized  as  the 
armature  of  an  arrow,  but  the  imagination  is  not  allowed 
legitimate  exercise,  and  the  one-time  arrow,  bow,  hunter 
and  game  pursued  are  given  no  thought.  "The  hunter  and 
the  deer  a  shade"  these  many,  many  years,  but  they  are  none 
the  less  real  if  the  story  told  by  the  arrow-point  falls  upon 
willing  ears.  This  trifling  bit  of  quartz  or  jasper,  deftly 
shaped,  stands  for  far  more  than  evidence  of  the  arrow- 
maker's  skill  in  flint-chipping  art.  It  epitomizes,  perhaps, 
the  most  prominent  feature  of  the  life  lived  by  the  savage 
native  race  of  America.  Much  else  they  had,  and  in  abund 
ance.  Varied  their  tools,  weapons  and  implements  of  chase 
and  warfare,  but  their  main  dependence  in  securing  the  flesh 
and  skins  of  animals  for  food  and  clothing  was  the  bow 
and  arrow. 

Thoreau  has  most  truthfully  said  that  the  blueberry  of 
the  back  country  hills  never  reaches  Boston.  The  bloom, 
the  freshness,  the  flavor,  are  dissipated  by  the  required 


20 

handling  and  transportation.  Unquestionable,  also,  is  it 
that  the  true  arrow-point  never  reaches  the  museum.  Then 
it  more  truly  goes  to  its  grave  than  it  did  when  shot  from 
the  bow  for  the  last  time,  and  found  a  resting  place  where 
the  collector  has  chanced  to  find  it.  Here  not  all  life  has 
fled  when  but  a  point,  the  shaft,  bow  and  bowman  van 
ished.  Very  much  the  same  is  the  fate  of  many  a  discovery 
in  the  field  that  is  of  real  importance.  It  produces  nervous 
prostration  at  the  museum.  It  has  no  place  in  the  dreary 
lists  of  specimens  received,  and  disturbs  the  placidity  of  som 
nolent  annual  reports. 

The  evolution  of  the  spear,  and  later  of  the  bow  and 
arrow,  is  a  tempting  subject  for  speculative  archaeology,  and 
in  that  misty  realm  of  the  vague  it  must  remain.  It  may  be 
stated,  without  qualification,  that  the  relics  of  the  Indian,  so 
far  as  yet  discovered  in  the  valley  of  the  Delaware  river,  do- 
not  show  the  slightest  evidence  of  a  stone  chip  attached  to 
a  short  handle  such  as  have  been  found  in  southern  Cali 
fornia,1  developing  into  a  carefully-shaped  point  attached  to 
a  slender  shaft.  There  are  tens  of  thousands  of  very  rudely- 
fashioned  points,  and  with  them  are  equal  thousands  of  most 
artistically-chipped  ones,  but,  inasmuch  as  the  rudest  are 
equally  effective  as  points,  we  can  surely  wonder  why  so 
much  labor  was  expended  on  such  an  object,  when  there  was 
but  small  chance  of  recovering  the  arrow,  uninjured,  once 
it  was  shot  at  any  animal.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  simplest 
shape,  the  triangular,  is  the  most  effectively  penetrative,  and 
shaped  with  least  labor,  and  yet  this  form  is  not  more 
abundant  than  many  others  that  seem  to  be  handicapped 
with  many  disadvantages  of  shape. 


Abbott :  Archaeology  of  Southern  California :  U.   S.  Geographical 
Surveys  West  of  looth  Meridian,  vol.  vii,  p.  59,  plate  iv. 


21 


The  puzzling  feature  of  any  considerable  collection  of 
these  objects  is  that  of  size.  How  large  were  arrow-points 
made,  and  when  does  the  same  pattern  become  a  knife  or  a 
spear-head  ?  It  is  hopeless  to  endeavor  reaching  to  a  conclu 
sion.  The  fact  of  variation  in  size  and  pattern  is  before  you, 
but  mocks  at  any  attempt  at  an  explanation.  It  can  hardly  be 


Fig.  i.  Arrow-points  used  by  historic  Indians  prior  to  introduction 
of  fire-arms.  Jasper,  agate  and  quartz,  and  still  showing  the  outline  of 
each  flake  detached  in  the  making.  (Y2~) 

said  that  this  variation  of  pattern  has  no  meaning.  It  looks 
toward  a  variety  of  purposes,  but  what  they  were,  if  they 
ever  existed,  no  eye-witness  has  recorded.  If  the  fabrica 
tion  of  arrow-points  was  the  life-work  of  professional 
chippers,  then  there  must  have  been  a  demand  for  the 
serrated,  edged,  twisted,  the  barbed  and  leaf-shaped  points, 


22 

or  they  would  not  have  been  made,  yet  not  one  but  is  less 
desirable  than  a  plain  triangular  one.  The  fact  that  such 
variety  exists  seems  to  me  to  be  evidence  that  there  were 
professional  chippers  of  flint,  rather  than  every  hunter  or 
warrior  provided  himself  as  need  demanded.  Peter  Kalm 
states  i1  "At  the  end  of  their  arrows  they  fastened  narrow 
angulated  pieces  of  stone;  they  made  use  of  them,  having 
no  iron  to  make  them  sharp  again,  or  a  wood  of  sufficient 
hardness;  these  points  were  commonly  flints  or  quartzes, 
but  sometimes  likewise  another  kind  of  stone.  Some  em 
ployed  the  bones  of  animals,  or  the  claws  of  birds  and 
beasts.  Some  of  these  ancient  harpoons2  are  very  blunt, 
and  it  seems  that  the  Indians  might  kill  birds  and  small 
quadrupeds  with  them;  but  whether  they  could  enter  deep 
into  the  body  of  a  great  beast  or  of  a  man,  by  the  velocity 
which  they  got  from  the  bow,  I  cannot  ascertain,  yet  some 
have  been  found  very  sharp  and  well  made." 

Kalm  wrote  the  above  at  Raccoon  (now  Swedesboro', 
Gloucester  county,  N.  J.),  in  1748,  so  that  he  only  records 
what  he  was  told  by  the  old  Swedes  then  living  there,  and 
adds  the  result  of  study  of  what  even  then  were  relics  of  a 
departed  race.  He  prefaces  his  paragraphs  concerning  these 
with  "having  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing,  and  partly  col 
lecting  a  great  many  of  the  ancient  Indian  tools,  I  shall 
here  describe  them."  His  conclusions  are,  I  think,  not  all 
warranted.  He  certainly  underrates  the  penetrative  power 
of  an  unarmed  but  pointed  arrow,  and  surely  one  made  of 
hickory,  if  not  blunt,  can  be  made  readily  to  penetrate  to1  a 
fatal  depth  any  bird  or  beast  that  the  Indian  encountered. 
That  hickory,  when  well  seasoned,  is  very  hard  all  know, 


travels  into  North  America,  London,  1771,  vol.  ii,  p.  39. 

2  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Kalm  here  refers  to  "harpoons" 
such  as  the  Eskimo  uses,  but  to  arrows.  The  translator  is  at  fault  here, 
as  he  is  responsible  for  many  obscurities. 


23 

and  they  had  means  of  sharpening  it,  for  Kalm  states  at  the 
very  outset  of  his  description  of  "Indian  tools" :  "Instead 
of  knives  they  were  satisfied  with  little  sharp  pieces  of  flint 
or  quartz,  or  else  some  other  hard  kind  of  a  stone,  or  with 
a  sharp  shell,  or  with  a  piece  of  a  bone  which  they  had 
sharpened."  The  value  of  the  stone  point  lies  largely  in  the 
fact  that  it  was  liable  to  be  detached  when  the  shaft  was 
removed,  and  possibly  it  was  the  custom  to  poison  it.  An 
arrow-point  much  broader  than  the  shaft  would  require  pn> 
portionately  greater  force  to  enable  it  to  penetrate  to  any 
distance.  We  know  that  bows,  as  made  by  the  Indians, 
whether  of  hickory  or  ash,  and  stiffened  by  lashing  another 
strip  of  wood  to  it  where  the  strain  is  greatest,  were  equal 
to  discharging  arrows  with  tremendous  force,  and,  as  expert 
bowmen,  arrow  followed  arrow  with  great  rapidity.  It  was 
this  more  than  the  effect  of  a  single  well-aimed  shaft  that 
proved  fatal  to  the  deer  and  bear. 

Kalm  makes  no  reference  to  the  art  of  chipping,  or 
whether  a  few  men  supplied  each  considerable  community. 
While  the  demand  was  so>  large,  and  percentage  of  loss  so 
great,  the  use  of  these  objects  as  arrow-points  solely  is 
probable,  but  there  is  warrant  for  asking  if  the  examples  of 
extreme  elaboration  may  not  have  been  designed  for  pur 
poses  wherein  the  probability  of  loss  or  injury  did  not  occur. 
Fond  as  the  Indian  was  of  display,  attracted  as  he  was  by 
gaudy  color,  and  possessing  as  he  did  appreciation  of  the 
symmetrical,  if  not  artistic,  in  any  conception,  it  is  not 
probable  that  such  conditions  influenced  him  to  the  extent  of 
making  arrow-points  that  had  no  advantage  when  used 
simply  as  the  armature  of  arrow-shafts.  But  if  these  arrow- 
points  had  other  uses  than  the  name  suggests,  what  were 
they?  The  question  takes  us  from  the  facts  of  the  field  to 
the  confines  of  the  museum.  There  let  the  question  rest. 


24 

It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  larger  mammals  were 
shot,  and  not  trapped  by  pens  and  pitfalls.  This  is  an  in 
ference,  especially  with  reference  to  the  latter,  but,  as  pens 
or  "pinfolds"  were  used  in  taking  fish  in  the  shallows  of 
the  river,1  it  is  not  unlikely  that  much  the  same  method  was 
used  on  land  to  entrap  deer,  the  one  animal  upon  which 
they  most  depended.  The  evidence  of  the  use  of  pitfalls  rest 
wholly,  I  think,  on  this  suggestion  being  the  correct  ex 
planation  of  numerous  hollows  or  "dugouts"  in  the  woods 
that  attracted  the  notice  of  the  earliest  settlers  when  they 
came  to  clear  the  land.  If  the  European's  impression  of  the 
Indian  be  correct,  that  he  shunned  exertion  whenever  pos 
sible,  then  such  a  means  of  capturing  bears,  for  instance, 
would  appeal  to  him  rather  than  to  brave  bruin  in  his  den 
with  a  bow  and  arrows.  In  fact  there  was  no  animal  that 
they  could  not  trap  more  easily  than  capture  by  use  of  any 
weapon  they  had  devised.  If  the  mastodon  still  roamed  in 
the  Delaware  valley  it  certainly  was  not  troubled  by  hurt 
ling  arrows  sticking  in  its  ribs,  notwithstanding  the  testi 
mony  of  that  mysterious  Lenape  stone  now,  fortunately  for 
American  archaeology,  relegated  to  the  limbo  of  unsuccessful 
frauds.  Evidence  is  still  wanting  to  prove  that  the  Dela 
ware  Indians  had  even  a  tradition  of  any  such  beast.  A 
name  for  it  would  appear  in  their  language  had  this  been 
true. 

To1  a  greater  extent  than  any  other  object  of  Indian 
handiwork,  unless  possibly  the  grooved  stone  axe  be  an  ex 
ception,  the  arrow-point  is  most  widely  distributed,  and  here 


^'My  cousin  Revell  and  I,  with  some  of  my  men,  went  last  third 
month  (May  O.  S.)  into  the  river  to  catch  herrings.  *  *  *  after  the 
Indian  fashion,  made  a  round  pinfold  *  *  *  we  drove  thousands  before 
us  *  *  *  so  many  got  into  our  trap  as  it  would  hold."  Hist.  Coll.  New 
Jersey.  Barber  and  Howe.  2nd  Ed.,  1856-7.  Letter  of  Mahlon  Stacy, 
written  at  Trenton,  1680. 


let  me  speak  of  my  own  experience  as  a  collector,  offering 
it  for  the  little  it  may  be  worth.  I  have  gathered  many 
thousands  of  Indians  relics,  and  it  is  my  impression  that  the 
singly-found  arrow-point,  picked  up  where  relics  in  all  their 
variety  do  not  occur,  is  well-nigh  invariably  of  simple  pat 
tern,  and  suitable  for  tipping  the  arrow-shaft,  while  the 
quaint  forms,  with  their  barbs,  wide  or  wing-like  extensions 
beyond  the  stem,  and  specimens  so  small  and  fragile  that 
they  were  useless  as  shaft  armature,  are  mostly,  if  not 
wholly,  found  on  village  sites,  associated  with  pottery,  char 
coal,  and  the  implements  of  every-day  use.  It  may  be  mere 
coincidence,  and  of  no  significance,  but,  as  this  has  been  my 
own  experience  after  thirty-five  years  of  field  work,  I  think 
it  has  a  meaning.  It  seems  to  be  true,  too1,  of  very  old  village 
sites,  abandoned  in  pre-historic  time,  as  well  as  of  those  of 
later  date,  when  the  objects  of  their  own  production  were 
unwisely  discarded  for  the  flimsy  gim-cracks  wherewith  the 
conscienceless  European  defrauded  them. 

Taking  arrow-points  as  a  guide,  it  is  an  irresistible  im 
pulse  of  the  collector,  if  really  a  student  of  his  subject,  to 
determine  if  they  suggest  by  their  numbers,  their  variety  of 
shapes,  the  conditions  under  which  they  occur,  and  the 
materials  of  which  they  are  made,  that  aniquity  the  charm 
of  which  alone  keeps  alive  the  student's  interest.  I1  have 
already  expressed  my  views  as  to  the  suggestiveness  of  their 
numbers,  and  referred  briefly  to  the  other  features  of  their 
occurrence,  but  additional  details  of  the  one  of  greatest 
importance,  that  of  material  used,  are  worthy  of  con 
sideration. 

Under  the  heading  of  "Antiquity,"  in  Hodges'  Handbook 
of  American  Indians,  we  find,  in  treating  of  the  geological 
conditions  at  and  near  Trenton,  N.  J.,  the  author  of  the 


^rchselogia  Nova  Csesarea,  i,  p.  39,  1907. 


26 

article  asserts  that  overcapping  the  Trenton  gravel  proper 
are  "a  few  feet  of  superficial  sands  of  uncertain  age,"  and 
desires  the  reader  to  believe,  judging  from  the  general  tone 
of  the  article,  that  they  are  not  worthy  of  the  archaeologist's 
consideration;  and  again:  "Beneath  the  soil,  extending 
throughout  the  sand  layers,  stone  implements  and  the  refuse 
of  implement-making  occur ;  but  the  testimony  of  these  finds 
can  have  little  value  in  chronology,  since  the  age  of  the 
deposits  inclo-sing  them  remains  in  doubt."  Let  us  en 
deavor  to*  see  what  that  little  in  chronology  is  really  worth. 
The  underlying  gravel  is  admitted  to'  be  the  product  oi 
floods,  due  to  the  melting  of  one-time  glaciers  in  the  upper 
valley  of  the  river.  This  is  plain  enough  to  all  except  those 
to  whom  everywhere  is  nowhere,  they  see  so  little.  In  time 
came  the  cessation  of  floods  equal  to  gravel  transportation, 
but  not  an  end,  by  any  means,  of  sudden  freshet  and  con 
tinuous  flood  that  far  exceeded  the  activity  in  this  direction 
known  to  historic  time,  and  it  must  be  remembered  that 
even  rainfall  alone,  without  any  aid  from  melting  snow,  can 
raise  the  river,  as  it  did  in  October,  1903,  a  third  of  the  way 
to  the  level  of  the  terrace  level  that  is  capped  with  this  sand 
which  has  attracted  so  much  attention.  Whether  we  must 
consider,  also,  changes  of  level  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  im 
portance  as  might  seem,  for  the  sand  tells  its  own  story. 
The  gravel  beneath,  when  the  last  of  it  was  laid  down,  was 
for  an  indefinite  period  the  flood-plain  of  the  ancient  river, 
and  the  sand  came  from  the  same  general  up-river  region 
and  overspread  this  gravel  gradually,  probably  with  many 
interruptions,  and  so  evidences  of  stratification  are  to  be 
traced  in  many  of  the  exposures.  That  it  is  such  a  water 
deposit  there  can  be  no'  question.  It  possesses  not  one 
feature  that  suggests  any  other  origin.  It  is  as  free  of 
food  for  theory  and  gives  as  little  opportunity  for  geologists, 
to  speculate  as  the  rocks  to  the  north  and  clays  and  marl- 
beds  to  the  south. 


That  when  exposed  to  the  sun  and  wind  these  sands 
should  have  been  somewhat  shifted  to*  and  fro,  and  irregu 
larities  of  surface  caused,  is  beyond  a  doubt,  but  renewal 
of  overwashing  floods  obliterated  much  of  this,  and  at  last 
the  terrace  surface  was  as  level  as  the  proverbial  plain,  and 
it  has  maintained  this  for  so  many  centuries  that  we  should 
be  a  little  cautious  when  glibly  talking  of  the  ever-shifting 
sands.  In  all  probability  these  sands,  when  laid  down,  were 
never  arid  for  any  length  of  time.  Vegetation  was  not  too 
scanty  to  greatly  aid  in  holding  them  intact,  and  there  is 
no  marked  elevation  of  them  anywhere  in  the  entire  area 
suggestive  of  a  dune.  Water  action,  then,  explaining  the 
deposit,  we  have  necessarily  to  look  backward  to  that  time 
when  such  sand-bearing  floods  were  possible,  and  certainly, 
considering  that  this  plateau,  once  frequently  overflows,  is 
now  from  fifty  to  sixty  feet  above  the  river.  It  is  insisted 
that  no  other  agency  than  flowing  water  could  have  formed 
the  deposit.  Torrential  rainfall,  washing  higher  ground, 
could  not  have  done  the  work  without  traces  of  violent 
action  and  all  absence  of  stratification ;  and  such  action,  too, 
would  have  rolled  down  small  boulders  and  some  coarse 
gravel  that  would  be  in  excess  near  the  junction  of  the 
higher  and  lower  ground,  and  such  is  not  the  case,  but  there 
are  boulders  in  such  frequency  that  their  importance  in  the 
history  of  the  deposit  must  not  be  overlooked.  The  sug 
gestion  that  they  belong  to  the  underlying  Trenton  gravel, 
and  that  the  sand  has  been  washed  from  around  them  by 
rain  and  temporary  rivulets  caused  thereby,  will  not  hold. 
These  boulders,  varying  from  one  to  four  and  five  cubic 
feet  in  bulk,  prove  to  be  lying  in  the  sand,  for  sand  is  resting 
on  the  gravel  underneath  them,  sometimes  to  a  depth  of 
five  and  six  feet.  As  some  have  been  exposed  recently  in 
cellar  and  other  excavations,  they  have  been  carefully  ex 
amined,  and  all  possible  evidence:  was  obtained  that  they 


28 

were  a  constituent  part  of  the  sand  deposit,  and  bore  no 
relation  to  the  underlying  Trenton  gravel. 

How,  then,  came  these  surface  boulders  where  they  are? 
There  is  but  one  known  agency  to  explain  their  presence, 


Fig.   2.     Arrow-points   and   spear-heads   found   in    underlying  sands. 
Argillite  and   with  outlines  of  chipping  wholly  or  nearly  obliterated. 


floating  ice  in  which  they  were  encased  or  upon  which  they 
were  borne.  They  tell  precisely  the  same  story  that  do*  the 
great  boulders,  weighing  tons,  that  are  characteristic  of  the 
earlier  gravels.  I  recently  measured  a  mass  of  argillite  near 


29 

Bristol,  Pa.,  which  contained  not  less  than  five  hundred  cubic 
feet  of  this  rock,  and  boulders  of  half  and  quarter  this  size 
are  of  frequent  occurrence.  Given,  then,  a  deposit  with  so 
clear  a  history,  and  traces  of  man  therein,  we  have  substan 
tial  evidence  of  lapse  of  time  that  has,  perhaps,  as  Mr. 
Holmes  has  put  it,  but  little  value  as  chronology,  but  when 
estimated  at  its  true  worth  is  found  to  go  so  far  back  that  the 
face  of  the  region  was  not  quite  the  same  as  now.  This  may 
not  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  figure  in  an  essay  on  An 
tiquity  of  Man  in  the  Delaware  Valley,  but  satisfies  the  rea 
sonable  archaeologist  who  is  concerned  alone  with  demon 
strable  fact. 

Now  what  of  these  traces  of  man  that  occur  in  this 
sand?  They  have  been  sadly  misunderstood,  especially  by 
those  who*  accept  their  knowledge  of  such  matters  at  second 
hand,  but  to  those  without  prejudice  or  preconception,  who 
have  examined  the  locality,  the  truth  was  as  plain  as  the  sun 
at  noon-day.  They  are  objects,  mostly  of  argillite,  the  arch 
aeological  significance  of  which  I  have  set  forth  in  a  previous 
publication.1 

This  sand  deposit  occupies  a  position  in  the  career  of  man 
in  the  Delaware  valley  that  is  distinctly  post-palaeolithic  and 
pre-Indian.  That  the  latter  gradually  merged  into  "In 
dian,"  i.  e.,  flint-chipping  and  pottery-making  man,  is,  I 
think,  demonstrable,  but  it  has  not  yet  been  as  satisfactorily 
determined  that  the  true  palaeolithic  horizon  merged  into 
that  here  called  the  pre-Indian. 

It  seems  difficult  to  keep  these  three  horizons  distinct 
when  contemplating  the  history  of  the  river  valley  as  a 
whole.  A  most  amusing  and  yet  unfortunate  instance  of 
this  inadequate  comprehension  of  the  facts  occurred  at  the 
meeting-  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement 


'Archaelogia  Nova  Csesarea,  p.  39  et  seq.,  1907. 


30 

of  Science  at  Toronto1,  in  1897,  when  a  professor  of  Ameri 
can  Archaeology,  who  has  more  than  once  visited  the  locality, 
and  had  had  the  truth  drummed  into  him  for  years,  exhibited 
flakes  of  argillite,  refuse  of  an  arrow-point  maker's  labors, 
gathered  from  these  sands  as  evidences  of  Palaeolithic  Man. 
Little  wonder  some  of  those  present  ridiculed  his  contention. 
It  was  an  inexcusable  blunder.  Absurdity  could  go  no 
farther. 

This  subject  is  fittingly  brought  to  notice  here,  because 
unquestionable  arrow-points  of  argillite,  very  rude  often, 
but  unmistakable,  occur  in  these  sands.  The  bow  appears  to 
have  been  known  to  the  man  who  dwelt  on  or  near  this 
flood-born  plain.  If  not  the  armature  of  arrows,  they  were 
the  heads  of  spears  that,  considering  their  size,  must  have 
been  trifling  weapons.  Spear-head  or  arrow-point,  it  mat 
ters  not ;  they  are  of  artificial  origin  and  as  old  as  the  deposit 
of  sand  containing  them.  Setting  aside,  therefore,  all  refer 
ence  to  genuinely  palaeolithic  conditions,  admit  for  argu 
ment's  sake  that  no'  such  conditions  ever  occurred  in  this 
river  valley,  we  have  in  these  sands,  covering  a  compara 
tively  small  area,  evidence  that  is  irrefutable  that  man  was 
here  when  the  influence  of  the  Glacial  period  was  not  a 
thing  of  the  past;  here  at  a  time  when  the  upper  or  non- 
tidal  reach  of  the  valley  was  forbidding,  if  not  actually  un 
inhabitable,  unless  upon  the  summits  of  the  surrounding 
hills;  at  a  time  when  man  could  from  such  elevation  look 
down  upon  a  river  that  was  constantly  a  resistless  torrent, 
vastly  wider  and  deeper  than  at  present,  and  which  was 
wearing  away  the  sides  of  the  valley,  eating  into  its  scanty 
soil,  and  spreading  it  here,  miles  southward,  where  the  flow 
was  checked  in  its  seaward  course  by  meeting  with  the  un 
yielding  tides. 

At  such  a  time  we  must  date  the  appearance  of  the  first 
arrow-points,  and  their  use  and  manufacture  continued  until 


the  arrival  of  the  European,  who,  introducing  fire-arms, 
caused  the  bow  to  be  slowly  but  steadily  laid  aside  or  handed 
over  to  the  children  as  a  plaything.  We  know  the  latter 
date  with  sufficient  certainty;  we  can  assume  the  former 
date  with  some  warrant  for  what  we  do.  What  of  the  in 
terval?  How  many  scores  of  centuries,  who  will  dare 
assert  ? 

THE  INDIAN  SPEAR. 

It  is  in  archaeology  as  in  some,  if  not  all,  branches  of 
knowledge,  that  the  simplest  objects  are  not  the  most  easily 
explained.  The  student  is  often  left  to  find  a  solution  for 
himself,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  teacher  is  not  equal 
to  the  occasion.  M'ere  words  go  a  long  way  towards  dulling 
the  senses,  but  by  no  means  do  they  satisfy  all  the  demands 
of  the  intellect. 

The  simplest  form  of  a  weapon  is  a  stick.  This,  armed 
with  a  round  or  oval  stone  at  one  end,  becomes  the  familiar 
club.  Sharpen  the  stone  to-  a  point,  and  it  becomes  a  spear. 
This  is  simplicity  itself,  but  this  very  weapon,  which  we 
know  was  one  of  the  possessions  of  the  Indian,  is  a  puzzle  in 
some  respects.  It  does  not  appear,  from  the  white  man's 
point  of  view,  to  have  been  an  effective  implement  of  either 
war  or  the  chase. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  man  at  so  low  a  stage  of  intel 
lectual  development  that  he  is  not  equal  to  this,  and  when 
equipped  with  a  spear  for  his  weapon,  his  wit  should  enable 
him  to  cope  with  his  foremost  and  most  exacting  task,  the 
capture  of  animals,  and  secondarily  to  defend  himself  against 
his  hum'an  foes  So  it  is  that  we  scarcely  can  think  of  a 
savage  without  his  spear.  To  civilized  man  they  appear 
necessarily  inseparable,  and  it  is  little  wonder  that  the  artists 
who  embellished  the  fascinating  but  unsatisfying  pages  of 


32 

the  pioneer  explorers  of  North  America,  should  as  promi 
nently  have  depicted  our  Indians  as  spearmen  as  they  did 
men  with  bows  and  arrows. 


Fig.  3.     Indian  spear-heads  of  jasper. 

Treating  of  spear-heads  found  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
Rev.  W.  M.  Beauchamp1  states  that  the  Iroquois,  according 


Aboriginal  Chipped  Stone  Implements  of  New  York :  Bulletin  of 
the  New  York  State  Museum.  Vol.  iv,  No.  16,  p.  39.  Albany,  N.  Y., 
1807. 


•fifttll 


33 

to  their  historian,  L-  H.  Morgan,  did  not  use  the  spear, 
while :  "On  the  other  hand,  in  his  picture  of  Atotarho, 
David  Cusick  placed  a  spear  in  the  hand  of  one  of  his  mes 
sengers.  Bruyas  has  allusions  to  spears  in  his  early  Mohawk 
lexicon,  and  their  occasional  use  may  be  inferred  from  the 
Jesuit  relations,  but  somewhat  obscurely.  The  Iroquois 
sword,  whatever  that  may  have  been,  was  often  mentioned. 
Schoolcraft  gives  the  word  for  spear  in  several  Iroquois 
dialects,  and  Zeisberger  uses  for  lance  the  name  which 
appears  in  another  lexicon,  half  a  century  earlier.  One 
Virginia  picture  has  Indians  with  fishing  spears,  but  these 
are  described  as  having  wooden  points,  not  metal  or  stone. 
A  weapon  so  useful  was  not  likely  to  be  abandoned  until  a 
substitute  was  found,  but  it  seems  certain  that  the  large  stone 
spear-head  was  not  generally  in  use  here  (i.  e.,  New  York 
State)  three  hundred  years  ago.  History  and  archaeology 
agree  in  this." 

"This  is  another  of  the  curious  proofs  of  a  change  in  race 
and  occupation.  Iroquois  and  Algonquin  alike  seem  to  have 
known  little  of  the  higher  stone  art  of  their  predecessors, 
and  a  weapon  once  everywhere  abundant,  had  almost  ceased 
to  exist.  A  sweeping  change  had  passed  over  the  land,  and 
the  newcomers  did  not  inherit  the  arts  of  the  old.  If  they  did 
not,  how  could  they  have  been  their  descendants.  Allowing 
for  every  resemblance,  there  is  still  a  wide  gulf  between  the 
Indian  of  our  Northern  and  Eastern  States,  as  first  known 
to  the  whites,  and  those  who  preceded  him.  This  difference 
can  only  be  fully  appreciated  by  those  who  have  early  sites 
of  a  known  age  to  examine" 

The  spear-heads  of  the  Delaware  Indians  tell  no  such 
story.  They  are,  as  has  been  stated,  a  puzzling  feature, 
when  relics  of  these  people  are  considered  in  their  variety 
and  association.  I  call  them  "puzzles"  from  the  fact  that,  so 


3  AB 


34 

far  as  I  have  been  able  to  gather  specimens,  they  are  clumsy, 
exaggerated  arrow-points,  without  the  effectiveness  of  the 
latter.  The  largest,  however  sharp  the  extreme  point  may 
have  been,  are  thick  at  the  middle  of  the  blade  and  without 
edges  that  are  as  sharp  as  the  typical  knife  made  of  the  same 
material,  and  however  securely  hafted,  would  need  the  power 
of  a  catapult,  rather  than  the  human  arm,  to  inflict  such  a 
wound  as  would  result  from  the  thrust  of  a  metal  spear. 
Schoolcraft  speaks  of  such  large  spears  as  "most  efficacious 
in  close  encounters,"1  but  I  think  scarcely  so  unless  pressed 
against  a  naked  and  non-resistant  body.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  stone  spear-heads  are  long  and  slender,  as  many  of 
them  are,  they  were  easily  broken,  and  all  things  considered, 
were  never  as  effective  as  a  well-directed  arrow.  Indeed,  an 
arrow  of  maximum  size  would  make  as  ugly  a  wound  and 
lead  the  way  as  effectually  to  the  entrance  of  the  shaft  as 
would  the  spear.  If,  too,  the  spear  is  as  desirable  a  weapon 
as  it  seems  to  be  upon  general  principles,  and  as  many  savage 
peoples  unquestionably  find  it,  why  among  the  later  relics  of 
the  Delaware  Indians,  i.  e.f  relics  made  of  jasper  and  quartz, 
do  they  occur  so  sparingly  and  bear  so  small  a  proportion  to 
the  entire  bulk  of  chipped  implements  ?  Spear-heads  proper 
or  those  that  are  at  least  four  inches  in  length,  of  silicious 
material,  are  rare.  They  have  not  occurred  in  my  experience 
as  a  collector  more  frequently  than  one  to  three  or  four  thou 
sands  of  arrow-points;  perhaps  not  as  often.  It  is  true  that 
a  bow  calls  for  any  number  of  arrows.  The  bow  would  with 
care  last  well-nigh  a  lifetime,  but  arrows  must  be  continually 
supplied,  but  a  spear,  escaping  accident,  would  be  a  perma 
nent  possession,  though  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  it  as  escaping 
destruction,  especially  if  the  head  was  long,  thin  and  slender. 
If  of  copper,  and  copper  spears  have  been  found,  it  might 


Schoolcraft:  Hist,  and  Cond.  of  Indian  Tribes.    Pt.  i,  p.  87,  pi.  26. 


35 

stand  any  stress  put  upon  it,  but  not  so  if  made  o-f  flint. 
Again,  if  apt  to  be  lost  or  broken,  and  others  promptly  re 
placed  it,  then  the  spear-head,  being  in  daily,  common  use, 
should  be  proportionately  abundant  among  relics,  but  it  is 
not.  If  we  may  judge  from  present  conditions  of  village 
sites,  its  use  was  quite  limited,  and  in  the  later  centuries  of 
the  Indian's  career  may  have  been  more  of  a  ceremonial 
object  than  one  of  daily  use.  That  the  very  last  Indians  in 
the  Delaware  valley  knew  the  spear  is  shown  by  their  lan 
guage,  as  the  words,  Tangamican,  Tangandikan,  Hattapi, 
Pepachkhamatunk,  indicate,  each  meaning  a.  spear  in  gen 
eral,  while  there  was  also  Notamaeishican,  signifying  fish- 
spear;  and  again  these  terms  for  spear  had  no  reference  to 
arrows,  which  are  but  small  spears.  These  were  known  as 
Alluns. 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  determine,  by  the  exploration 
of  village  sites,  I  have  found  no  trace  of  such  conditions  as 
Mr.  Beauchamp  describes  as  pre-Iroquois  and  Iroquois.  The 
Delaware  Indians,  so  far  as  we  know  or  are  likely  to  know, 
from  the  day  of  their  establishment  here  at  the  head  of  tide 
water — it  was  their  headquarters  and  principal  town — until 
their  expulsion  by  the  European,  dwelt  continuously,  and  the 
relics  of  their  one-time  occupation  of  the  region  points  to  no 
material  change  in  their  condition,  nor  are  there  sites  at 
other  points  in  the  immediate  valley  or  near  it,  east  or  west, 
that  seem  in  any  important  degree  older  and  exhibit  a  differ 
ent  condition  as  to  habits  and  outfit.  Mr.  Beauchamp  speaks 
of  the  predecessor  of  the  Iroquois  and  Algonquin.  The 
Delaware  Indians  are  Algonquin,  and  were  at  one  time  the 
most  important  people  among  that  stock  or  nation,  but  they 
had  here  in  New  Jersey  no  predecessors  of  equal  or  greater 
culture.  They  certainly  succeeded  to  no  superior  tribe  of 
flint-chipping  Indian,  as  Mr.  Beauchamp  states  was  the  case 
of  the  Iroquois.  The  stone  implements  of  flint,  or,  more 


correctly,  of  jasper  and  quartz,  can  be  referred  to  no  other 
people. 

There  is,  however,  a  condition  obtaining  in  the  valley  of 
the  Delaware  that  possibly  has  a  bearing  on  this  subject  of 
the  use  of  spears.  As  I  have  persistently  maintained,  the  use 
of  argillite  preceded  that  of  jasper,  and  where  the  former 
occurred,  almost  if  not  quite  exclusively,  there  is  found  a 
type  of  implement  that  is  certainly  spear-like  in  appearance, 
if  never  used  as  such  a  weapon.  They  are  referred  to  also 
as  knives,  and  not  unfrequently,  especially  when  the  task  of 
classification  of  specimens  falls  upon  the  curator,  they  are 


Fig.  4.    Jasper  scrapers.    The  purpose  here  is  not  problematical.     (l/2) 

duly  catalogued  simply  as  "implements."  This  is  a  highly 
appreciated  term  in  museum  circles.  It  covers  a  very  large 
proportion  of  stone-age  handiwork.  It  inspires  confidence, 
too,  in  the  mind  of  the  curator.  He  feels  safe  from  contra 
diction  and  enjoys  a  degree  of  confidence  never  otherwise 
experienced,  particularly  when  he  assures  the  uninstructed 
that  "this  is  an  implement." 

True  or  not,  when  we  gather  these  objects  in  the  fields, 
picking  one  up  here  and  there  from  the  furrows  of  recently- 
ploughed  ground,  the  impulse  is  to  say,  on  the  spur  of  the 
moment,  "this  is  a  spear-head,"  and  on  this  basis,  logical  or 


37 

otherwise,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  ancient  argillite-using 
man,  be  he  true  Indian,  or  his  fore-runner  and  essentially 
distinct,  was  as  much  a  spear-man  as  an  archer.  The  bow, 
as  I  have  stated  when  treating  of  the  gravel-capping  sand, 
must  have  been  known  at  a  very  early  period,  but  the  spear 
was  equally  common,  and  I  have  wondered,  at  times,  if  it 
was  not  more  so,  and  if  the  smaller  specimens,  or  assumed 
arrow-points,  might  not  have  been  used  as  small  spear 
heads.  Archaeologists  are  necessarily  groping  in  the  dark 
when  treating  of  such  a  matter.  The  conditions  obtaining 
among  existent  tribes,  which  may  be  using  the  same  form 
of  implement,  is  not  necessarily  a  safe  guide.  The  form  of 
the  so-called  spear-head  is  so  readily  available  for  other  than 
spearing  purposes,  that  what  was  its  use  in  one  region  is 
not  necessarily  that  of  another.  Those  among  the  earliest 
Europeans  who  left  records  of  these  people  wrote  only  of 
what  they  saw  or  were  told  by  a  race  not  devoid  of  a  sense 
of  humor,  and  much  might  have  been  said  as  to  their  known 
past,  which  was  far  from  true.  Neither  Haeckwelder,  Zeis- 
berger  or  Loskiel  were  archaeologists,  and  the  role  of  his 
torian  was  assumed  with  too  little  sense  of  its  importance. 
They  wrote  of  the  conditions  as  they  appeared  to  them  to  be, 
but  did  not  make  sure  that  the  apparent  and  the  real  were 
identical,  and  while  the  information  they  have  left  behind 
them  is  of  great  value,  we  cannot  but  deplore  the  opportunity 
wasted  in  their  futile  efforts  to  convert,  which  is  always  an 
unwarranted  interference  with  nature's  purposes,  and  wish 
they  had  spent  their  lives  in  practical  investigation.  Had  this 
happened,  this  region,  the  metropolis  of  Lenapean  activity, 
would  not  now  be  such  a  source  of  disputatious  wrangling 
among  American  archaeologists. 

Another  form  of  spear-like  objects,  made  of  argillite,  and 
for  which  in  iSSi1  I  suggested  the  term  "fish-spear,"  and  re- 


1Primitive  Industry,  p.  273,  fig.  253.     Salem,  Mass.,  1881. 


38 

marked  of  them,  "hundreds  *  *  *  have  been  collected 
from  the  alluvial  deposits,  through  which  various  creeks 
have  now  worn  their  channels.  In  this  alluvial  mud,  which 
has  been  for  centuries  and  is  still  accumulating,  many  speci 
mens  of  these  argillite  spear-points  have  been  found  at 
various  depths,  even  to  five  feet,  and  nowhere  do  they  occur 
in  such  abundance  as  in  this  deposit,  which  forms  the  tide 
water  meadows  that  skirt  the  banks  of  the  Delaware  from 
Trenton." 


Fig-  5-    Jasper  "drill."    This  pattern  of  implement  is  scarcely  adapted 
for  other  use  than  that  indicated  by  the  name  adopted  here. 


A  lapse  of  twenty-six  years  and  much  extended  observa 
tion  now  requires  of  me  to  recall  the  above,  as  to  the  distri 
bution  of  this  marked  form  of  implement.  They  are  found 
throughout  the  entire  area  of  South  Jersey,  or  that  part  of 
the  State  which  was  not  affected  by  glacial  conditions  be 
yond  receiving  floods  of  icy  waters  and  in  the  river's  imme 
diate  valley  floods  of  ice.  This  is  more  than  half  the  whole 
State,  and  was  everywhere  occupied  by  a  comparatively 
fixed  population.  The  historic  Indians  had  a  name  for 
every  stream  and  a  village  somewhere  on  its  banks.  The 
traces  thereof  are  unmistakable,  but  all  over  this  territory, 
up-hill  and  down-dale  alike,  and  often  far  from  any  water 
where  fish  are  found,  these  fish-spears  are  to  be  gathered 
in  considerable  numbers.  I  hold  to  the  name.  Considering 
their  shape  and  their  unquestioned  adaptability  to  spearing 
fish,  from  our  point  of  view,  and  the  fact  that  so  many  have 


39 

been  gathered  from  the  shores  of  considerable  streams 
where  fish  are  still  abundant  and  where  village  sites  give 
evidence  of  a  fauna  more  suggestive  of  a  food-supply  than 
do  the  streams  at  present.  The  Indian  knew  no  game- 
laws,  it  is  certain,  and  often  indulged  in  "wholesale  slaugh 
ter,"  as  we  would  call  it,  but  still  there  is  no  evidence  that 
common  sense  was  not  exercised,  as  a  rule,  and  no  species  of 
fish  was  ever  exterminated  by  them.  Then  the  name,  Nota- 
maeishican  is  to  be  kept  in  mind.  The  Indian  used  some 
sort  of  a  spear,  and  this  pattern  is  most  likely  to  be  the  one 
in  question.  They  are  essentially  an  argillite  implement, 
and  many  of  them  are  very  old,  and  some  are  so  decayed 
that  only  the  practiced  eye  would  recognize  their  artificial 
origin.  The  same  form  in  jasper  rarely  occurs,  and  I  have 
never  seen  it  in  quartz.  How  rapidly  argillite  disintegrates 
is  an  open  question.  Break  one  of  these  old  and  crumbling 
spears  in  half  and  a  core  will  be  found  that  is  of  almost 
flinty  hardness,  and  readily  scratches  glass.  The  softer 
coating  of  semi-decomposed  stone  seems  to  be  a  pretty 
permanent  protective  coat  to  the  core,  and  in  such  state  the 
implement  is  insured  a  fairly  protracted  continuance;  but 
change  gradually  does  go  on,  for  some  specimens  have  been 
found  that  barely  retained  their  shape  and  suffered  from 
even  careful  handling.  May  we  not  infer  from  these  condi 
tions  that  thousands  of  these  spears  have  long  since 
crumbled  into  dust?  It  is  surely  a  warrantable  assumption 
that  abundant  as  are  these  objects  still,  they  represent  in 
but  meagre  fashion  what  has  been.  Much  concerning  their 
significance  that  applies  to  ancient  argillite  implements  of  a 
far  ruder  pattern,  i.  e.,  the  palaeolithic  type,  applies  to  these 
assumed  fish-spears. 

They  are  now  found  upon  the  surface.  Every  rain  washes 
the  sand  from  many  a  score  and  then  they  are  covered  again 
when  the  wind  shifts  these  same  sands  when  dry.  How  so 


40 

fragile  an  object  has  so  generally  escaped  destruction,  ex 
cites  surprise.  Neither  the  tread  of  the  horse  or  the  ruth 
less  plowshare  seems  to  do  more  than  push  them  aside. 
Their  number  is  incredible  in  some  localities.  In  the  valley 
of  one  small  stream,  where  the  sand  is  deep  and  has  not  been 
materially  disturbed,  except  by  Nature's  own  forces,  I  have 
known  more  than  one  hundred  to  be  found  during  a  few 
hours'  search,  and  one  marked  feature  of  the  condition  of 
discovery  was,  that  often  a  dozen  or  more  would  be  found 
in  contact,  indicating  that  they  had  been  buried  or  left  on 
the  surface,  and  gradually  the  sand  heaped  over  them.  Cer 
tainly  such  is  the  case  of  a  cache  of  fifty  or  a  hundred  or 
more,  and  such  deposits  have  been  frequently  unearthed. 

Hundreds  are  found  upon  the  surface,  associated  with 
unquestionable  relics  of  the  Indians,  and  so  why  not  class 
them  as  such?  By  most  archaeologists  this  is  done;  per 
haps  by  everybody  but  myself;  but  I  hesitate  to  consider 
them  as  only  a  common  form  of  Delaware  Indians'  handi 
work  down  to  historic  time  for  more  than  one  reason.  That 
these  Indians  made  and  used  them  is  not  questioned,  but 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  they  were  in  common 
use  to  the  very  last,  as  colossal  ignorance  has  confidently 
declared.  There  is  surely  significance  in  the  fact  that  they 
are  a  characteristic  form  of  the  deep  sand  deposits,  and  are 
found  at  the  very  base,  often,  of  ancient  sand-dunes,  far 
from  the  surface  and  where  never  a  trace  of  jasper,  quartz 
or  pottery  occurs.  If  these  sand  hills  are  recent  and  all  the 
argillite  fish-spears  made  by  the  historic  Indian  or  his 
grandfather,  as  has  been  claimed,  then  why  has  not  all  the 
handiwork  of 'these  people  been  inhumed?  It  is  precisely 
the  same  condition  as  that  pointed  out  by  me  years  ago  of 
the  assumed  palaeolithic  implements  of  the  Trenton  gravel. 
They  have  been  called  "intrusive  objects"  and  "unfinished 
implements"  and  "rejects,"  and  endless  plausible  and  un- 


41 

plausible  suggestions  made  by  those  whose  only  aim  is  to 
modernize  every  trace  of  early  man,  ignore  facts  when  pos 
sible  and  distort  others  when  the  attempt  is  not  too  glaring. 
Pottery,  however,  decides  the  matter.  It  never  occurs  in 
the  gravel  and  if  not,  why  not,  if  the  palaeolithic  implement 
is  an  intrusive  Indian  object.  Nature  never  did  and  never 
would  take  the  trouble  to  discriminate.  When  she  disturbs 
the  surface  every  object  upon  it  is  treated  alike.  There  is 
no  selection  and  never  yet  has  a  stone  axe,  polished  celt, 
jasper  arrow-point  or  pottery  been  found  in  situ  in  a  gravel 
deposit.  What  has  been  found  is  what  might  be  expected, 
the  rudely-chipped  pebble  that  marks  the  beginning  of  arti 
facts. 

Was  the  condition  of  significantly  deep  inhumation  of 
one  form  of  object  with  absence  of  Indian  handiwork  found 
upon  the  surface  peculiar  to  a  very  limited  locality,  there 
might  be  some  explanation  that  would  fit  the  case  and  no 
other  origin  than  that  of  the  historic  Indian  be  indicated, 
but  this  is  not  true.  These  fish-spears,  or  whatever  they 
may  be,  so  strongly  suggest  throughout  so  wide  a  territory 
that  they  are  old,  to  a  great  extent  ante-date  the  general 
use  of  the  jasper,  that  I  am  still  convinced  that  my  view,  as 
expressed  in  1881,  is  substantially  correct. 

When  the  bow  was  invented,  it  evidently  soon  followed 
that  the  arrow  was  made  more  effective  by  arming  its  point, 
though  this  really  would  have  been  unnecessary  if  hard 
wood  had  been  used,  but  bow  and  arrow,  spear  and  spear 
head  alike  had  a  beginning,  a  primitive  form  o<f  which  it  may 
be  truthfully  said,  "lost  is  lost,  and  gone  is  gone  forever." 
Certainly  the  primitive  arrow-point  is  beyond  recognition. 
That  a  splinter  of  rock  with  an  acute  point  and  cutting  edge 
should  attract  attention  and  suggest  value  as  an  addition  to 
an  arrow  is  quite  in  the  course  of  natural  events,  once  the 
bow  was  invented,  or  if,  as  has  been  claimed,  the  spear 


42 

preceded  the  bow,  then  the  armed  arrow  is  but  a  smaller 
form  of  that  weapon,  differently  projected.  Here  we  are 
groping  hopelessly  in  the  dark.  The  initial  form  of  fabri 
cated  arrow-point  is  unknown.  Naturally,  splinters  of  stone 
of  available  shape  and  size,  of  accidental  origin,  would  not 
supply  the  demand,  and  the  art  of  flint-chipping  was  culti 
vated.  This  established,  the  design  of  the  point  was  a  matter 
of  chance  quite  as  likely  as  that  the  various  shapes  had  each 
its  own  purpose,  except  perhaps  the  most  elaborated  and 
bizarre  forms. 

Whatever  the  age  and  origin  of  arrow-point  making,  and 
however  uncertain  the  student  may  feel  in  dealing  with  the 
problem,  this  at  least  is  not  open  to  discussion,  the  art  as 
practiced  here  at  the  "ffalles  of  the  Delaware,"  the  head  of 
tide-water,  the  meeting-place  of  conditions  that  are  infinitely 
varied,  where  the  hills  cease  and  the  plains  commence,  a 
once  beautiful  spot,  now  nearly  covered  by  a  hideous  city, 
here  reached  its  highest  development  and  flint  work  that 
commands  the  admiration  of  all  who  appreciate  the  outcome 
of  skill,  is  still  tx>  be  found  in  this  one  time  favorite  dwelling- 
place  of  early  man. 

At  least  one  "king"  of  the  Lenni  Lenape  lived  within  a 
few  rods  of  where  I  am  now  at  work.  As  seen  from  his 
W7igwam,  he  had  a  varied  landscape  before  him.  Forests 
fended  off  the  chill  north  winds  and  a  wooded  flood-plain 
of  the  river,  seventy  feet  below,  stretched  far  away  to  the 
south.  Hereabout  every  industry  known  to  homekeeping 
Indians  was  pursued,  and  here,  even  to  this  day,  traces  of 
all  such  industries  are  still  found.  As  potters,  as  implement 
makers,  as  designers  of  amulets  and  ceremonial  objects,  and 
carvers  in  stone  of  curious  pipes,  as  cultivators  of  the  soil, 
they  were  eminently  successful,  and  this,  so  confidently 
stated,  is  all  shown  by  the  excellence  and  abundance  of  their 


43 

handiwork.     One  old  king,  at  least,  had  the  very  best  that 
was  to  be  had,  about  him. 

Gathering  here  and  there  some  trace  of  this  ancient  folk, 
a  potsherd,  an  axe,  an  amulet,  or  the  far  more  common 
arrow-point,  it  is  well  to  let  the  object  lead  you  back  to 
forgotten  centuries,  as  it  will,  if  you  so  desire.  The  mind 
is  more  easily  influenced  than  we  suspect,  and  with  an  Indian 
relic  in  hand,  we  can  see,  in  a  sense,  the  man  who  made  it, 
and  not  only  him,  but  his  associates,  and  the  ploughed  field 
becomes  again  a  village  site.  Unless  we  do  this,  the  real 
purpose  of  exploration  is  wanting,  and  the  gathering  of 
specimens  becomes  as  monotonous  and  meaningless  as  dry- 
as-dust  statistics.  The  head  of  a  spear,  the  point  of  an 
arrow,  unless  the  one-time  owner  thereof  is  pictured  to  the 
mind,  are,  alike,  nothing.  And  be  it  remembered,  he  whose 
vision  is  thus  penetrative  and  constructive,  is  not  necessarily 
a  visionary. 

THE   ANCIENT    QUARRYMAN. 

The  doctrine  of  resemblances,  which  is  scarcely  worthy 
of  the  name  "doctrine,"  and  cannot  be  elevated  to  the  plane 
of  a  scientific  theory,  seems  to  have  been  the  actuating 
motive  in  the  preparation  of  Mr.  Mercer's1  report  on  the 
antiquity  of  man  in  the  Delaware  valley.  Wholly  opposed 
to  the  view  of  any  evidences  of  antiquity  being  derived  from 
the  products  of  aboriginal  skill  and  that  tradition  and  folk 
lore  must  be  given  respectful  consideration,  Mr.  Mercer 
pounces  with  great  glee  upon  what  may  possibly  combat  if 
not  annihilate  the  view  of  antiquity,  and  overlooks  the  main 


1  The  Antiquity  of  Man  in  the  Delaware  Valley.  I.  Introduction. 
II.  Ancient  Argillite  Quarry  and  Blade  Workshop  on  the  Delaware 
River.  By  Henry  C.  Mercer.  Publications  of  the  University  of  Penn 
sylvania,  vol.  vi,  p.  85.  Illustrated.  Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  1897. 


44 

features  of  the  ground  he  explores,  which  are  all  important 
in  determining  the  archaeological  significance  of  the  locality. 
The  student  is  under  obligations  to  the  author  of  the  report 
under  consideration  for  its  valuable  details.  They  give  a 
lucid  and  correct  idea  of  the  physical  conditions  as  he  un 
earthed  them,  but  as  to  his  conclusions,  that  is  wholly  a 
different  matter. 

As  so  often  happens,  the  broad  distinction  between  as 
sumption  and  fact  is  overlooked  and  many  a  conclusion  is 
based  on  the  former  and  yet  set  forth  with  all  the  confidence 
of  results  that  rest  undeniably  upon  the  latter.  The  assump 
tion  is  invaluable  in  archaeological  research.  There  are  too 
few  facts  to'  work  with,  and:  reasonably  assuming  this  and 
that,  the  worker  in  the  field  can  progress  satisfactorily  and 
comes  at  last  either  to  demonstrate  that  his  assumption  is  un 
warranted  or  that  it  is  not  an  assumption  at  all,  but  a  fact. 
The  all-important  point  is  to  keep  the  two  separate  and 
be  quick  to  discard  the  assumption  when  it  proves  to  be 
valueless.  Too  many  archaeologists  are  strangely  loath  to 
part  with  a  pet  theory.  It  is  hard,  and  often  means  that 
the  labor  of  a  life-time  has  been  in  vain.  Preconceived 
ideas,  if  dominant,  renders  all  field-work  useless,  except  per 
haps  the  dreary  details  of  mechanical  work  and  description 
of  the  specimens  collected,  and  preconception,  it  appears  to 
me,  vitiates  this  brochure  of  Mr.  Mercer's  on  Delaware  val 
ley  archaeology.  The  author's  antipathy  towards  the  idea 
of  a  really  ancient  man  in  the  region  treated  is  pronounced. 
All  that  savors  of  a  lapse  of  years  is  as  a  red  rag  to  a  bull. 

By  the  doctrine  of  resemblances,  as  I  have  called  it,  Mr. 
Mercer  is  inclined  to  accept  the  conclusion  that  because  he 
has  found  vast  quantities  of  rude  argillite  implements  at 
the  spot  where  the  material  was  quarried,  and  that  they 
have  the  same  general  appearance  as  those  found  on  the 
surface  of  the  elevated  plateau  of  central  South  Jersey,  and 


45 

also  occur  in  the  gravels  of  the  immediate  valley  of  the 
river,  that  the  two  are  identical  in  age,  origin  and  all  archae 
ological  significance,  or,  as  Mr.  Mercer  puts  it,  "historical" 
significance.  His  contention  appears  to  be,  for  there  are 
no  distinctly  positive  assertions,  that  man  carried  these  rude 
objects  from  Point  Pleasant  on  the  Delaware,  in  Bucks 
county,  Pennsylvania,  to  Cape  May,  in  New  Jersey,  and 
that  that  man  was  the  Indian,  or  his  great-grandfather,  with 
whom  William  Penn  bargained  for  the  pick  of  his  land. 
The  doctrine  of  resemblances  is  called  upon  to  prove  this, 
and  apparently  does  so*  to  his  satisfaction ;  but  is  it  a  logical 
conclusion?  Here  at  Point  Pleasant  argillite  "blades"  were 
made;  ergo,  all  blades  wherever  found  come  from  Point 
Pleasant.  Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc.  Whatever  such  line 
of  reasoning  may  be,  it  is  not  archaeology. 

In  the  first  place,  the  resemblance  is  fortuitous.  In  the 
second  place,  unfinished  objects  would  obviously  be  the 
same  wherever  found,  though  they  were  made,  the  one  cen 
turies  before  the  other  and  by  people  wholly  unrelated, 
and  lastly,  when  there  was  active  exploitation  of  argillite 
quarrying  and  implement  fabrication  at  Point  Pleasant  and 
that  general  neighborhood,  if  Mr.  Mercer  is  correct  in  his 
inference  that  it  was  as  recent  as  five  centuries  ago,  the 
Indian  of  the  tide-water  region  was  using  jasper  in  prefer 
ence  to  argillite  and  had  been  using  it  for  a  long  time.  As 
already  pointed  out,1  the  dwellers  in  the  tidal  region  were 
not  dependent  on  quarries  of  any  sort  for  a  supply  of  any 
material  for  making  implements,  and  that,  too,  of  the  very 
first  quality.  Masses  of  argillite  sufficient  to  meet  all  their 
needs  were  near  at  hand  and  altogether  accessible.  One 
such  mass  that  I  have  recently  seen  uncovered — it  was 
within  three  feet  of  the  present  surface  of  the  field — would 
have  made,  if  worked  up,  fully  one  hundred  thousand  flat 


1  Archseologia  Nova  Csesarea,  p.  35.     1907. 


46 

"blades,"  such  as  are  so  common  everywhere  in  South 
Jersey;  blades  two  inches  in  width  and  from  five  to  seven 
inches  long.  Again,  who  among  archaeologists  or  more 
fortunate  folk  has  demonstrated  that  these  blades  were 
made  by  the  historic  Indian.  The  word  "argillite,"  or  any 
term  of  same  purport,  does  not  occur  in  any  publication 
concerning  the  Indians,  printed  in  the  seventeenth  or  eight 
eenth  century.  No  difference  was  detected  between  one 
arrow-point  and  another ;  with  the  early  explorers  and  mis 
sionaries,  every  object  not  made  by  themselves,  was  made 
by  an  "Indian;"  but  this  does  not  go  to  prove  that  prior 
to  the  Indian  whom,  they  knew  there  might  not  have  been 
another  people.  No  one  is  rash  enough  to  declare  in  'ex 
cathedra  manner  that  there  were  such,  but  the  author  of 
these  pages,  for  one,  does  dare  to  claim  there  is  evidence 
of  man's  presence  in  South  Jersey,  which  is  more  reason 
ably  explained  on  such  an  hypothesis  than  upon  any  in 
ference,  deduction  or  assumption  offered  by  Mr.  Mercer. 
I  have  seen  one  cache  of  argillite  "blades" — not  a  truly  de 
scriptive  name,  if  cutting  is  implied — numbering  two  hun 
dred  specimens,  not  one  of  which  showed  the  slightest  trace 
of  having  ever  been  used  in  any  way.1  To1  what  purpose 
they  were  put,  if  any,  is  purely  conjectural.  They  might 
have  been  used  as  hoe-blades,  for  instance,  but  if  so  used 
there  should  be  signs  of  attrition,  especially  when  digging 
in  the  sharp,  sandy  soil  of  South  Jersey.  This  I  have 
never  seen.  After  examining  many  hundreds  of  specimens, 
now  in  the  Abbott  collection  of  the  Peabody  Museum,  Har 
vard  University,  and  in  collections  made  by  others,  it  is 
the  same  story,  no  nicking  of  the  edges,  no  striae,  no  pol 
ishing,  but  the  object  as  it  came  from  the  hand  of  the 
maker,  plus  the  ravages  of  time;  simply  chipped  thin  blades 


1  See  article  "Cache  discs  and  blades."     Handbook  of  American 
Indians,  p.  178.    Washington,  D.  C,  1907. 


47 

that  had  suffered  only  as  all  implements  of  argillite  suffer 
from  long  exposure.  Why  they  should  be  referred  to  the 
argillite  in  place  and  not  to  boulders  of  this  mineral  near 
at  hand,  does  not  appear.  It  is  true  discs  of  jasper  are 
also  found  cached,  and  in  one  instance  both  it  and  argillite 
were  associated  in  a  cache  of  over  two  hundred  objects, 
but  the  jasper  was  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  the  whole  and 
the  argillite  objects  were  not  weathered  but  black,  and  the 
chipping  as  fresh  as  when  done,  which  bore  out  that  for 
which  I  have  always  contended,  that  argillite  never  ceased 
to  be  used,  but  its  place  was  gradually  taken  by  silicious 
material. 

It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  characteristic  product 
of  Gaddis  Run,  near  Point  Pleasant,  was  not  a  finished  arti 
fact  and  not  intended  for  "crude  material''  for  more  special 
ized  fabrications.  It  must  be  remembered  that  they  are  not 
adapted  to  re-chipping  until  a  thin,  flat  blade  is  produced, 
and  not,  too,  of  much  smaller  size.  These  roughly-chipped 
but  finished  (?)  objects  are  noticeable  as  being  shaped  by 
detachment  of  very  large  flakes,  and  the  specimen  has  a  wavy 
shape  that  could  not  be  removed  by  any  amount  of  "trim 
ming."  A  second  consideration  is,  that  the  argillite  at  Gaddis 
Run,  as  microscopic  and  chemical  examination  shows,  is  not 
identical  with  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  argillite 
relics  found  in  the  tidal  area  of  the  river  valley;  and  un- 
trimmed  implements,  if  such  they  were,  unquestionably 
from  Gaddis  Run,  are  found  scattered  over  the  fields,  miles 
away  from  that  locality.  They  occur  singly,  and  never  yet 
as  a  cache,  ready  for  the  workman  to  convert  them  into 
more  available  shapes.  As  they  bear  not  the  slightest  re 
semblance  to  objects  of  same  material  found  in  the  gravel, 
but  have  been  found  deeply  buried  in  the  soil  and  wholly 
unassociated  with  Indian  handiwork,  it  is  evident  that  while 
not  old  in  a  strictly  geological  sense,  they  are  not  as  "new" 


48 

as  the  historic  Indian.  There  is  nothing-  to  indicate  the 
precise  or  approximate  age  of  the  quarry  at  Gaddis  Run, 
and  the  discovery  of  the  product  thereof  in  the  tidal  limits 
of  the  river  valley  under  circumstances  indicative  of  pre- 
jasper  and  pre-pottery  age,  makes  it  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  quarry  is  as  old  as  the  day  of  exclusively  argillite 
products  and  synchronous  with  the  sands  that  overlie  the 
gravel  and  on  which  the  "Indian"  soil  now  rests. 

The  exploration  of  the  Point  Pleasant  neighborhood  re 
vealed  the  fact,  known  to  everybody  long  years  before,  that 
blocks  of  argillite,  wrought  to  their  present  shape  and  now 
known  by  the  rather  unfortunate  name  of  "turtle  backs," 
as  it  is  not  descriptive  of  all  the  specimens  that  are  classed 
together  as  "rude"  or  "unfinished,"  and  this  was  the  sole 
source  of  supply  of  argillite.  Here,  again,  we  think  Mr. 
Mercer's  view  is  incorrect.  If  comparatively  recent  floods 
have  carried  these  much — -and  unnecessarily — discussed 
objects  down  the  river  for  a  distance  of  some  twenty 
miles,  why  should  they  not  show  signs  of  the  rough  and 
tumble  treatment  to  which  they  would  necessarily  be  sub 
jected?  Those  found  in  the  talus  along  the  river  shore  do 
not  show  anything  of  the  kind.  Water-worn  "palaeolithic" 
implements  from  the  gravelly  bed  of  the  river  are  occa 
sionally  found.  The  former  are  from  the  gravel  bluff,  of 
which  they  are  a  constituent  part  and  have  been  exposed 
to  little  or  no  water-action,  while  the  latter,  from  the  bed 
of  the  river,  have  been  so  exposed.  It  is  not  clear  how 
the  one  set  or  evident  that  the  other  were  chipped  miles 
from  where  they  are  now  found,  by  Indians  of  three  or 
four  centuries  ago.  The  truth  is,  and  it  can  never  be  too 
frequently  or  emphatically  declared,  that  the  two  regions, 
tidal  and  non-tidal,  are  in  no  way  comparable  and  should 
never  be  associated.  They  are  as  distinct  as  the  palaeolithic 
and  neolithic  horizons  in  Europe. 


49 

Mr.  Mercer  recognizes  in  the  "turtle  back"  the  initial 
chipping  that  is  to  be  succeeded  by  more  skilful  work  and 
an  implement  to  be  the  product  of  the  labor  involved.  In 
other  words,  his  "turtle  backs"  are  either  unfinished  but 
finishable  objects  or  they  are  failures.  Now,  what  I  sug 
gested,  thirty  years  ago,  were  finished  implements  of  pre- 
Indian  origin  and  gave,  unwisely,  a  local  name,  are  really 
as  much  finished  implements  as  a  grooved  axe  or  polished 
celt,  if  availability  as  a  weapon  or  a  tool  is  to  be  our  guide. 
I  may  have  erred  in  confusing  some  unfinished  objects  with 
real  implements  of  the  palaeolithic  type,  but  he  renders  con 
fusion  worse  confounded.  That  all  the  conditions  which 
obtain  at  Gaddis  Run,  Point  Pleasant,  and  wherever  else  Mr. 
Mercer  worked,  would  be  found,  outside  of  quarries,  is  inevi 
table  considering  the  huge  masses  of  argillite,  in  the  drift 
gravels,  upon  which  the  tide-water  people  worked.  But  it 
is  scarcely  necessary  to  continue  pointing  out  the  inappli 
cability  of  his  assumptions.  How  unwarranted  they  are  is 
established  by  his  single  remark  that  the  historic  Indian 
"may  have  been  living  at  the  spot  as  late  as  1737."  Sup 
pose  he  was,  he  was  then  no  longer  a  user,  to  say  nothing 
of  a  maker,  of  stone  implements.  He  made  nothing  of  a 
permanent  character,  unless  possibly  he  carved  a  soap-stone 
pipe.  Supplied  with  a  gun,  or,  if  using  a  bow,  had  arrows 
tipped  with  metal,  had  European  manufacturers  supplying 
all  his  needs,  his  day  as  a  "child  of  Nature"  was  over.  If 
a  lingering  band  of  despairing  and  degenerating  Indians 
were  lingering  in  the  neighborhood  or  camping  on  the  very 
site  of  Mr.  Mercer's  trenches,  it  surely  has  no  bearing  on 
the  question  of  antiquity  of  man  even  in  that  region.  He 
does  not  produce  one  jot  or  tittle  of  evidence  to  show  when 
man  first  noticed  the  excellence  of  argillite  at  Gaddis  Run. 
In  attempting,  too,  to  connect  its  exploitation  with  all  that 
succeeded,  he  lamentably  fails.  Pitted  hammer  stones  are 
4  AB 


50 

not  sufficient.  So  simple  a  form  of  implement  was  quite 
within  the  capabilities  of  a  man  who  could  fabricate  a 
"palaeolith,"  and  pitted  hammers  are  found  in  Europe, 
where  palaeolithic  man  is  as  established  a  fact  as  that  man 
there  passed  from  this  to  the  neolithic  stage,  and  are  not  un 
known  in  the  Trenton  gravels. 

It  is  assumed,  not  demonstrated,  that  the  argillite  quar 
ries,  where  the  rock  is  in  place,  were  discovered,  opened  and 
worked  by  the  historic  Indian,  as  were  unquestionably  the 
jasper  quarries  that  are  not  so  very  far  away.  Were 
they  synchronously  operated  or  did  one  precede  the  other? 
We  are  not  given  this  very  important  information.  The 
utilization  of  jasper  and  quartz  did  not  depend  upon  the 
discovery  of  this  rock  in  place;  why  should  argillite?  In 
1885  I  discovered  at  Catawba  where  jasper  arrow-points 
had  been  made.  It  was  a  long-abandoned  village-site,  in 
Atlantic  county,  New  Jersey,  on  the  Great  Egg  Harbor 
river,  which  an  earlier  visitor  has  thus  described : 

"The  Naples  yellow  sand-bank  of  Catawba  covered  with 
oaks  is  visible  afar.  The  waves  of  the  river  break  into 
lines  of  foam  on  its  beach  and  over  the  river  stretch  acres 
of  meadow  back  of  which  are  the  fastnesses  of  a  swamp 
forest. 

"On  the  side  and  crest  of  this  bank  many  bits  of  flint, 
broken  arrow-heads  and  clam-shells,  charred  stones,  frag 
ments  of  crude  pottery,  queerly  ornamented  with  dots  and 
zig-zag  lines,  and  Indian  food-plants  indicate  that  here 
there  was  once  an  Indian  camp-ground.  By  the  bits  of  flint 
the  work-shop  of  the  ancient  arrow-head  maker  is  easily- 
located.  Here,  with  rude  implements,  he  deftly  plied  his 
trade.  The  charred  stones,  broken  shells  and  pottery  still 
mark  the  spot  where  the  squaws  once  cooked  their  food. 
These  are  the  vestiges  of  an  age  that  is  past — these  are  the 
relics  of  the  mild-mannered  Lenni  Lenape." 


Here  are  countless  jasper  pebbles,  and  these  had  been 
the  source  of  supply  for  the  Indian  of  that  neighborhood. 
Hundreds  of  pebbles,  partly  chipped  and  discarded,  were 
gathered,  showing  conclusively  that  arrow-points  were 
made  of  small  masses  of  the  material  but  a  little  larger  than 
the  desired  implement,  while  innumerable  minute  chips 
were  scattered  through  the  sand,  and  often  so  deeply 
buried  as  to  suggest  decided  antiquity.  This  "find"  com 
pletely  upsets  the  view  so  often  and  confidently  expressed 
that  large  masses  were  first  blocked  out,  reduced  to  "blades" 
and  then,  at  "trimming  sites,"  of  which  we  hear  much  and 
see  little,  however  diligent  the  search,  were  finally  finished 
as  spear-head,  arrow-point,  drill  or  stemmed  scraper. 

Of  probably  greater  import  than  any  other  consideration, 
or  all  of  them  together,  is  the  fact  that  the  argillite  imple 
ments  found  in  the  non-tidal  regions  of  the  Delaware  valley 
from  the  neighborhood  of  Point  Pleasant,  westward  through 
the  country  (in  Pennsylvania),  show  no  such  evidence  of 
age  through  decomposition,  as  do  these  same  forms  in  New 
Jersey  from  the  head  of  tide- water,  southward.  I  have 
collected  so  many  specimens,  personally,  and  examined  so 
many  collections  made  by  others,  that  here,  too,  I  speak 
confidently.  It  is  practically  certain  that  no  stone  imple 
ments  were  made  here,  i.  e.,  Point  Pleasant  quarries,  within 
the  past  two  centuries.  Firearms  had  been  fairly  well  dis 
tributed  by  1700,  and  besides,  the  Indians  had  practically 
left  the  neighborhood,  yet  the  argillite  points,  the  chips,  the 
long  slab-like  "blades"  or  what  not  from  Gaddis  Run  are 
comparatively  fresh  or  unaltered  since  the  day  of  chipping. 
I  have  many  specimens,  found  on  the  surface  and  gathered 
from  trenches,  that  are  as  well  defined  as  to  the  secondary 
chipping  along  the  edges  as  any  imperishable  jasper  arrow- 
point  now  shows.  This  is  a  condition  that  does  not  obtain 
among  the  argillite  objects  of  like  pattern  found  in  the 


52 

sandy  fields  of  New  Jersey,  and,  as  already  stated,  many 
that  are  found  here  are  scarcely  to  be  recognized  so  exten 
sively  has  the  process  of  disintegration  progressed.  If  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  soil  in  Bucks  county,  Pennsyl 
vania,  about  Point  Pleasant,  is  preservative  and  the  sands  of 
Burlington  and  Mercer  counties,  New  Jersey,  are  destruc 
tive,  then  an  explanation  would  be  at  hand,  but  it  is  not 
true. 

Again,  in  comparing  the  two  localities,  the  subject  of 
encrusted  argillite  implements  must  be  considered.  In  the 
sands  of  the  tidal  region  of  the  river  valley,  and  through 
out  the  territory  extending  to  the  sea,  incrustations  of  iron 
and  sand  or  iron  and  clay  are  common  on  pebbles  of  every 
description.  No  mineral  occurring  in  these  sands,  as  peb 
bles  or  boulders,  escapes  this  addition  to  its  bulk,  but  it  is 
significant  that,  while  the  argillite  arrow-points  are  seldom 
free  from  some  traces  of  this  accretion,  I  have  never  found 
it  upon  any  jasper  or  quartz  arrow-point,  although  pebbles 
of  these  minerals  are  often  completely  coated.  This  I  have 
always  maintained  is  irrefutable  evidence  of  the  greater 
age  of  the  argillite.  This  is  not  true  of  the  objects  found 
up  the  river  or  in  the  non-tidal  area.  No  argillite  imple 
ments  found  there  have  this  condition  of  surface.  Pebbles 
are  found  there  so  incrusted,  but  the  operation,  very  slow 
in  its  work,  has  not  had  time  to  affect  the  surface  of  any 
artificially-chipped  surface.  The  simple  fact  that  argillite 
objects  have  been  lying  long  enough  in  the  sands  of  New 
Jersey  to  become  covered  with  a  coating  of  limonite  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  these  forms  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  those  of  Point  Pleasant.  Throw  all  else  out  of 
court  as  irrelevant,  and  the  single  fact  of  the  condition  of 
these  objects,  "turtle  backs,"  blades,  fish-spears  and  arrow- 
points  alike,  point  only  to  the  one  conclusion,  the  antiquity 
of  man  in  the  Delaware  Valley. 


53 

From  the  author's  point  of  view,  Mr.  Mercer  hopelessly 
damages  his  whole  case  by  the  conclusion,  on  his  part, 
"that  the  resemblance  in  make  of  a  certain  number  of 
Trenton  specimens  to  the  quarry  series  suggests  that  the 
former  had  been  made  by  modern  Indians  and  intruded 
by  them  into  the  gravels."  Just  what  he  means  by  "in 
truded  by  them  into  the  gravels,"  is  by  no  means  clear. 
If  modern  Indians  deliberately  buried  these  objects,  why 
this  pattern  and  not  other  examples  of  their  handiwork? 
Nothing  else  has  ever  been  found,  and  thirty  years'  search 
renders  it  probable  that  nothing  else  ever  will  be.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  Mr.  Mercer  means  that  the  Indian,  living 
here  when  the  gravels  were  being  gradually  lain  down, 
and  lost  these  objects,  why  there  is  a  glimmer  of  reason  in 
what  he  says.  This  being  led  away  by  resemblances  is 
most  unfortunate  in  this  case,  inasmuch  as  it  robs  other 
wise  earnestly  conducted  "up-river"  exploration  of  a  great 
deal  of  its  value.  The  shape  of  a  chipped  stone  is  of  less 
value  than  the  condition  of  its  surface,  and  this  Mr.  Mercer 
has  entirely  overlooked. 

Had  early  writers  indulged  in  no  speculation,  had  they 
not  been  over-confident  as  to  the  correctness  of  their  im 
pressions  and  so  left  cautious  rather  than  confident  state 
ments  concerning  the  Indian's  origin,  would  the  archaeolo 
gists  of  to-day  be  so  readily  inclined  to  explain  all  that  con 
fronts  them,  when  in  the  field?  I  trow  not.  Because  an 
Indian  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago  made  a  statement 
on  such  a  recondite  subject  as  tribal  history,  must  it  neces 
sarily  have  been  true  ?  It  may  have  been  given  as  received, 
and  accepted  by  all  his  tribesmen  as  veritable  history,  but 
was  the  Delaware  Indian  ever  in  condition  to  preserve  his 
tory  beyond  the  events  of  two  or  three  generations  at  most? 
I  think  not.  His  involuntary  records,  so  far  as  they  re 
main,  are  alone  reliable. 


54 

Tradition  is  full  of  interest.  It  fascinates.  It  is  always 
plausible,  but,  unfortunately,  "like  the  average  white  man, 
it  is  full  of  uncertainty."  Surely,  never  can  we  tell  how 
much,  and  at  what  rate,  that  which  was  once  authentic  his 
tory  becomes  vague  and  generalized  when  handed  down 
from  generation  to  generation,  and  merges  at  last  into  the 
true  traditional  conditions.  Unfortunately  for  those  who 
would  know  the  truth,  tradition  takes  upon  itself  so  vigorous 
a  life,  one  so  able  to  withstand  assaults,  that  it  emulates 
immortality  and  has  no  feature  whereby  a  clue  to  actual 
age  can  be  estimated.  "Long  ago,  in  the  days  of  our  grand 
fathers,"  the  equivalent  of  the  "Once  upon  a  time"  of  our 
familiar  fairy  tales,  is  not  a  phrase  with  which  time  can  be 
measured.  It  may  mean  twenty  centuries  quite  as  likely  as 
ten  or  even  one.  The  historian  can  make  some  use  of  tra 
dition  on  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  probabilities.  If  it 
agrees  with  all  other  forms  of  evidence,  heed  may  be  paid 
to  it,  but  not  otherwise;  but  to  the  archaeologist,  unless  his 
every  step  is  taken  with  the  utmost  care,  it  is  a  delusion  and 
a  snare.  Certainly  the  "history"  of  man  in  America,  as 
based  upon  tradition,  is  so-called  through  courtesy  alone. 
It  is  a  long,  rambling,  contradictory  tale,  that  is  pleasant 
to  read,  but  conviction  as  to  its  truth  does  not  follow  peru 
sal.  Archaeological  explorations  tell  a  different  story,  and 
one  wherein  far  fewer  difficulties  are  met. 

In  the  essay  already  cited,  Mr.  Mercer  calls  to  his  aid, 
to  substantiate  the  claim  of  the  Delaware  Indian's  very 
recent  origin,  a  considerable  array  of  "authorities,"  and  the 
chief  among  them  the  Walum  Olam  that  has  been  ex 
haustively  treated  and  discussed  by  the  late  Dr.  D.  G.  Brin- 
ton.  Grant  that  the  translation  thereof  is  absolutely  cor 
rect,  that  the  original,  itself,  is  all  that  has  been  claimed 
for  it  by  its  most  zealous  advocates,  it  nevertheless  is  safe 
to  say  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Delaware  river 


55 

is  referred  to  in  any  one  of  its  declaratory  paragraphs.  It 
purports  to  be  the  legend  of  a  protracted  migratory  move 
ment  from  point  to  point,  but  it  is  not  so  definite  that  we 
can  accurately  trace  the  route  of  the  asserted  migration. 
Its  rivers  may  be  any  rivers,  its  ocean  as  likely  one  of  the 
Great  Lakes  as  the  Atlantic.  It  doubtless  is  a  record, 
though  very  vague,  of  actual  occurrences,  but  of  a  time  so 
very  long  ago  that  all  the  particulars  were  forgotten,  and 
how  could  any  event  of  real  importance  be  rationally  re 
tained  in  the  memory  and  as  thus  remembered,  transmitted, 
when  that  bane  of  existence,  fanatical  superstition,  was  as 
much  a  misfortune  of  these  untutored  Indians  as  it  is  still 
of  ourselves?  With  every  facility  for  correct  record  of 
the  passing  moment,  our  own  colonial  history  is  far  from 
satisfactory,  and  some  of  it  a  sorry  hotch-potch  of  supposi 
tion,  half-remembered  events  and  unreliable  say-so.  It  is 
remarkable,  indeed,  considering  all  else  that  the  Walum 
Olam  should  be  an  actuality  and  preserved  as  it  was,  but 
nothing  connected  with  it  places  it  in  the  category  of  re 
liable  history,  beyond  the  mere  fact  that  we  have  no  evi 
dence  that  the  Delaware  Indians  reach  the  river  valley  of 
the  same  name  from  the  east,  or  across  the  sea,  makes  it 
plausible  that  the  Walum  Olam  tells  the  story  of  reaching 
the  Delaware  Valley  from  an  inland  point,  but  it  does  not 
prove  it.  But  if  there  were  other  evidence,  and  we  accept  it 
as  an  authority,  the  element  of  measurable  time  is  hope 
lessly  lacking.  In  archaeology  it  is  all  a  question  of  time 
relative  and  not  time  absolute,  and  when  we  have  to  deal 
with  time  relative,  the  century  is  as  just  a  unit  as  the  year. 
Mr.  Mercer,  I  believe,  does  not  admit  this,  but  it  has  ever 
been  my  claim,  and  nothing  in  archaeological  research  has 
been  brought  to  light  which  weakens  the  justness  of  my 
position. 

Mr.  Mercer  says  of  the  Walum  Olam: 


56 

"The  latter  curious  record,  whose  authenticity  is  toler 
ably  well  established,  places  eleven  chiefs  between  the  ar 
rival  of  the  Lenape  at  the  Delaware  Valley  and  the  coming 
of  white  men  (say  Hudson,  in  1609)  ;  and  if  we  give 
twenty  years  to  a  chief's  reign,  the  date  of  their  first  com 
ing  would  have  been  about  1387.  This  agrees  with  what 
a  Lenape  told  the  Rev.  Charles  Beatty,  in  1767  (Journal 
of  a  Two  Months'  Tour  West  of  the  Alleghany  Moun 
tains,  Charles  Beatty,  p.  27,  London,  1868).  When  count 
ing  beads  on  a  wampum  belt  as  years,  according  to  tribal 
custom,  he  said  that  his  people  had  come  to  the  Delaware 
370  years  before,  or  in  1397. 

"The  Heckewelder  version  of  the  tradition,  however, 
which  gives  no  means  of  fixing  dates,  would  infer  that  the 
newcomers  found  the  country  vacant.  The  exploring  par 
ties  of  the  eastward  migrating  tribe,  it  says,  arriving  at 
the  Susquehanna,  followed  it  down  to  the  Chesapeake  Bay, 
then  ascended  the  bay  and  outer  seacoast  and  discovered 
the  Delaware  River,  New  Jersey,  and  the  Hudson  River, — 
a  country  abounding  in  game,  fruits  and  fish,  'and  with  no 
enemy  to  be  dreaded.' 

"This  seeming  absence  of  prior  occupants  in  the  new 
country  is  again  suggested  by  the  Walum  Olam,  which 
refers  to  the  newly  discovered  land  as  'a  land  free  from 
snakes  (enemies),  a  rich  land,  a  pleasant  land/ 

"But  without  attempting  to  dwell  too  much  on  these  tra 
ditions  and  their  claim  that  the  Lenape  only  arrived  in 
the  Delaware  Valley  five  hundred  years  ago,  and  that 
before  that  time  it  had  lain  uninhabited  for  an  unknown 
period,  suffice  it  to  say  that  at  Lower  Black's  Eddy  we 
have  found  two  stages  of  occupancy. 

"The  layers  prove  a  difference  in  time,  short  or  long. 
The  character  of  the  objects  found  a  difference  in  handi 
work.  Future  work  can  alone  prove  whether  this  differ- 


57 

ence  denotes  a  mere  accident  of  varying  tribal  conditions, 
or  a  wide-spreading  difference  in  cultural  status.  Let  us 
only  say  now  that  at  this  one  spot  it  exists." 

The  tenor  of  the  above-quoted  paragraphs  from  Mr.  Mer 
cer's  pamphlet  shows  clearly  as  buttercups  in  a  green  pas 
ture  that  his  personal  inclination  is  towards  the  five-century 
view  of  the  subject.  Thus  he  is  the  Indian's  historian,  and 
archaeology  is  beyond  his  purpose.  Persuaded  that  an 
tiquity  cannot  be,  he  fails  to  see  the  possible  significance 
of  conditions  that,  it  is  true,  may  be  of  recent  date,  bdt 
the  verdict  of  "not  proven"  rests  over  the  scene  of  his 
labors.  Certainly,  nothing  was  discovered  by  him  or  by 
subsequent  visitors  to  the  spot  to  show  that  the  Gaddis  Run 
quarries  are  not  themselves  older  than  five  hundred  years. 
The  debris  that  marks  the  spot  had  been  lying  there  for 
quite  two  centuries  when  the  ground  was  overturned  and 
the  result  of  much  stone-flaking  activity  was  brought  to 
light.  Why,  then,  must  only  three  centuries  be  allowed  for 
the  period  of  occupancy  and  activity? 

The  unquestionable  identification,  if  correct,  in  the 
Walum  Olam,  of  the  Susquehanna  and  Chesapeake  Bay,  of 
the  Delaware  Bay  and  river,  and  of  the  Hudson,  which  is 
not  admitted,  really  bears  out  my  own  contention  that  the 
tidal  region  of  what  is  now  New  Jersey  was  first  reached, 
and  at  its  southern  extremity  at  that,  and  was  settled  per 
manently  long  before  the  argillite  quarries  could  possibly 
have  been  discovered.  The  trend  of  .settlement  would  neces 
sarily  be  up  the  river,  and  those  heavily  forested  highlands 
and  the  precipitous  banks  of  the  stream  would  be  for  a  long 
time  only  the  hunting  grounds  and  regions  for  casual  ex 
ploration  long  before  any  man  would  venture  to  form  per 
manent  settlements.  Its  acquisition  for  village  sites  and 
agriculture  would  not  be  like  the  flowing  of  a  stream,  ever 
moving  forward.  Southern  New  Jersey  was  capable  of 


58 

sustaining  a  dense  population,  and  in  all  human  probability 
every  creek,  brook,  and  perhaps  every  considerable  spring 
with  a  meadow  about  it,  every  open  glade  in  the  forest  and 
the  whole  reach  of  the  river  shore  on  each  side  would  be 
dotted  with  habitation  sites  before  the  less  promising  land 
beyond,  a  vast  sunless  forest,  cold,  forbidding  and  unat 
tractive,  wasrso  far  subdued  that  safe  and  healthful  habita 
tions  were  established.  Nature's  hand  was  against  man 
among  the  hills  and  where  the  river  flowed  unceasingly  and 
rapidly  in  but  one  direction ;  as  much  so  as  it  was  a  helpful 
hand  in  the  lower-lying,  level  plains,  where  there  was  prac 
tically  nothing  to  contend  against  and  a  food  supply  in  the 
river  and  along  the  seacoast  was  ever  available.  Yet  the 
Indian  did  do  all  this.  He  acquired  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  every  square  rod  of  it,  and  if  we  are  to  pay  any  attention 
to  tradition,  of  which  Mr.  Mercer  thinks  so  much,  the 
Indian  was  a  dweller  in  the  river  valley  many  miles  above 
Black's  Eddy,  when  the  waters  were  dammed  at  the  Water 
Gap  and  a  great  lake  glittered  in  the  sunlight  where  there 
is  now  a  glorious,  fertile  valley;  and  this  same  Indian 
knew  the  country  before  catastrophic  action  occurred  at 
Nockanixon  and  the  whole  surface  of  the  country  changed. 
This  is  tradition.  It  is  given  for  what  it  is  worth,  and  will 
any  historian  of  the  Lenape  have  the  temerity  to  assert  that 
such  changes  as  we  know  have  occurred  in  the  immediate 
river  valley  date  back  only  about  five  hundred  years? 

That  the  river  would  be  traced  to  its  source,  the  adjacent 
country  explored  and  every  feature  of  it  become  known, 
finally,  was  inevitable.  The  Indian  was  never  so  incurious, 
such  a  stay-at-home,  as  to  keep  his  wigwam  ever  within 
view.  He  learned  in  time  all  that  the  land  contained.  He 
ultimately  had  a  name  for  every  place  and  for  every  object 
it  contained.  He  crossed  and  re-crossed  it  until  the  paths 
he  wore  were  so  far  permanent  at  last  that  they  are  not  yet 


59 

all  obliterated.  He  tarried  by  the  river  shore  or  upon  its 
islands  and  then  sought  other  sites,  perhaps  safer  ones, 
being  driven  by  freshets  from  his  home.  He  did  all  and 
much  more  than  Mr.  Mercer  finds  evidence  of  his  doing, 
but  who  shall  pretend  to  say  when  the  Indian's  activities 
among  the  Pennsylvania  highlands  began  ?  We  know  when 
they  ceased,  but  that  avails  nothing.  The  element  of  time 
is  lacking,  save  as  suggested,  time  relative.  That  no  long- 
continued  village  was  at  Lower  Black's  Eddy  was  made 
apparent  before  Mr.  Mercer's  exploration  of  the  site.  His 
"layers  of  occupation"  was  not  a  startling  discovery,  yet  it 
disconcerts  him.  It  indicates  clearly  occupation,  abandon 
ment  and  re-occupation.  It  fits  but  ill  with  the  claim  of 
but  three  centuries,  for  the  place  was  permanently  aban 
doned  two  hundred  years  ago.  Mr.  Mercer  is  hoisted  on 
his  own  petard. 

It  is  almost  trifling  with  the  subject  to  take  into  consider 
ation  what  Mr.  Mercer  seriously  considers,  the  tradition 
that  the  Delaware  Indians  first  caught  sight  of  the  river  in 
1397;  but  if  such  a  thing  had  happened,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  land  they  found  was  virgin  soil,  so  far  as 
the  foot  of  man  was  concerned.  Hseckw elder's  narrative 
would  lead  to  the  inference  "that  the  newcomers  found  the 
country  vacant."  Here  again  we  have  nothing  but  assump 
tion.  There  may  have  been  no  opposing  force  already  here 
that  stayed  the  Indian's  progress.  Battles  would  probably 
have  been  dimly  remembered  and  vaguely  transmitted,  but 
that  a  people  were  here,  or  had  been  here,  is  not  impossible 
or  improbable.  The  pre-Indian  argillite  folk,  for  whose 
identity  I  have  so  long  contended,  may  have  disappeared, 
even  become  extinct,  through  plague,  pestilence  or  famine, 
the  constant  ravages  of  war  or  persistent  cannibalism.  This 
is  only  conjecture,  one  of  many  possible  explanations;  but 
why  consider  tradition  when  the  relics  of  a  foregone  race 


6o 

point  to  wholly  different  conditions?  If  the  Indian  of  his 
toric  time  is  not  the  direct  descendant  of  a  less  cultured 
savage,  then,  on  reaching  this  locality,  the  task  was  before 
him  of  absorbing  a  weaker  race,  and  it  was  accomplished.. 
We  have  not  as  yet,  and  may  never  have,  positive  knowl 
edge.  The  dissertations  of  Mr.  Mercer  and  of  Mr.  Holmes 
throw  no  light  upon  the  subject.  Their  efforts  to  exces 
sively  modernize  the  argillite  quarries  signally  fail. 

"Myself  when  young  did  eagerly  frequent 
Doctor  and  Saint,  and  heard  great  argument 

About  it  and  about ;  but  evermore 
Came  out  by  the  same  door  where  in  I  went." 

What  little  we  really  do  know  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows : 

(a)  That  the  presence  of  pitted  hammers  is  not  a  neces 
sary  reason  for  associating  the  objects  found  with  them 
with  the  latest  phases  of  Stone  Age  Industry;  such  ham 
mers  being  known  elsewhere  at  the  lowest  horizon. 

(b)  The  mere  presence  of  "turtle  backs"  means  nothing, 
if  by  this  term  is  implied  unfinished  objects  or   failures. 
They  were  necessarily  a  product  also  of  large,  rude  imple 
ments,  differing  in  toto  from  "blades." 

(c)  That  the  resemblance  of  one  form  of  chipped  stone  to 
another  is  not  necessarily  an  evidence  of  identity  in  age  or 
origin. 

(d)  That  two  regions  as  wholly  separate  and  apart  as  the 
non-tidal  and  tidal  reaches  of  the  Delaware  River  must 
each  be  judged  on  its  own  merits.    The  physical  conditions 
being  radically  different,  no  reasoning,  however  cogent,  that 
may  be  expended  upon  one  region  has  force  in  another. 

The  conditions  at  Lower  Black's  Eddy  are  not  favorable 
for  accurate  determination  of  ancient  conditions.  The  river 
is  even  now  equal  to  flooding  a  great  portion,  if  not  all  of 


6i 

it.  It  was  submerged  in  the  phenomenal  flood  of  1903. 
Such  floods,  where  water  only  is  the  disturbing  factor,  do 
not  render  it  impossible  to  discriminate  between  an  older 
and  a  later  horizon,  but  with  an  accompaniment  of  floating 
ice,  it  may  be  different.  Then  a  gully  may  be  formed,  not 
by  gradual  displacement  of  the  soil,  but  by  undermining 
and  wearing  away  a  great  mass  of  frozen  and  compact  earth 
and  filling  in  the  hollow  with  material  from  near  by.  The 
whole  original  deposit  may  be  washed  away  and  supplied  by 
transported  material  that  gradually  replaces  it.  Certain  it 
is,  that  at  Lower  Black's  Eddy  there  is  very  little  that  was 
there  or  like  what  it  was  in  the  heyday  of  Indian  occupa 
tion.  It  could  never  have  been  a  permanent  village  site. 
The  argillite  attracted  but  at  favorable  times,  and  the 
quarry  at  Gaddis  Run  visited  and  abandoned  year  after 
year,  as  the  Indian's  needs  were  met.  I  have  said,  year  after 
year,  yet  why  not  century  after  century?  There  is  not  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  evidence  going  to  show  that  ever  a  jasper- 
using,  pottery-making  Indian  ever  split  a  blade  from  the 
Gaddis  Run  quarry.  There  is  nothing  to  disprove  that  it 
was  a  scene  of  industry  when  the  man  of  the  Delaware 
Valley  was  an  argillite  man  exclusively.  Such  a  supposed 
early  occupant  of  the  region  would  soon  discover  in  the 
boulders  of  the  tidal  area,  that  not  all  argillite  is  the  same, 
and  a  search  for  the  very  Best  of  its  kind  in  all  things  is 
not  an  attribute  solely  of  advanced  people,  and  certainly 
the  quarry  product,  useless  in  itself,  so  far  as  known,  was 
not  so  well  adapted  to  implement-making  of  specialized 
types  as  the  smaller  pieces,  nearer  the  dimension  and  shape 
of  knife,  arrow-point  or  spear-head. 

As  to  the  evidences  of  Indian  occupation  at  Lower 
Black's  Eddy,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  was  the  stamp 
ing  ground  of  collectors  long  years  before  Mr.  Mercer's 
explorations.  The  author  has,  himself,  dug  many  a  hole 


62 

in  the  grassy  slope  well  above  the  river  and  near  the  water's 
edge,  and  was  present,  in  June,  1890,  when  a  considerable 
trench  was  dug  through  quite  as  suggestive  ground  as  that 
opened  by  Mr.  Mercer.  Jasper  arrow-points  and  potsherds 
were  found  near  the  surface,  and  at  a  lower  depth,  argillite 
points  and  flakes.  It  was  an  exciting  moment,  and  we  were 
all  in  hopes  of  discovering  a  "palaeolithic  floor,"  as  it  is 
called  in  England,  but  at  the  limit  of  the  excavation,  when 
near  the  water  level,  instead  of  any  trace  of  earliest  man, 
there  was  unearthed  a  suspender  buckle.  Evidently  the  land 
so  near  the  river  as  at  Lpwer  Black's  Eddy  is  not  a  safe 
basis  upon  which  to  found  conclusions.  That  Mr.  Mercer 
has  shown  that  an  older  and  more  recent  occupation  of  the 
site  occurred,  and  that  there  was  a  decided  difference  in 
the  condition  of  the  people  in  the  one  case  and  the  other  has 
this  significance.  It  is  corroborative  evidence  of  what  we 
find  in  New  Jersey  in  many  localities,  but  this  has  been  over 
looked  by  the  author  we  have  quoted.  The  quarries  may 
have  been  exploited  by  the  people  of  the  "lower  layer  of 
occupation"  and  the  men  of  the  "upper"  been  ignorant  of 
their  existence. 

ANTIQUITY  OF  TH£   HISTORIC   INDIAN. 

There  is  a  widespread  tendency  to  be  skeptical,  among 
intellectual  people,  that  works  for  good  when  it  demonstrates 
how  necessary  it  is  to  be  cautious  and  not  ever-ready  to 
accept  statement  as  such  without  other  warrant  of  its  value 
than  the  ipse  dixit  of  the  narrator.  But  skepticism  may 
outreach  too  far  and  include  in  its  grasp  that  to  which  it  is 
not  entitled.  If  nothing  is  accepted  as  true  but  what  with 
our  own  eyes  we  can  see  and  with  our  own  ears  hear,  then 
crass  ignorance  must  follow.  Without  faith  we  are  reduced 
to  the  level  of  brutes,  but  it  must  be  a  discriminating  and 


63 

not  blind  faith.     So  much  for  the  one  world  in  which  we 
live,  that  of  facts ;  but  there  is  another  sphere  of  activity, 
a  world  within  a  world,  wherein  greater  freedom  is  allowed, 
the  world  of  rational  speculation.     Herein  we  have  a  few 
facts  and  it  is  ours  to  make  the  most  of  them  and  as  best 
we  may.     We  can  never  know  in  the  sense  of  the  absolute 
knowledge  of  mechanics  or  chemistry,  but  guided  by  what 
we  discover,  be  it  more  or  less,  we  can  convince  ourselves 
and  by  future  discoveries,  unconvince  or  re-convince,  but 
never  feel  that  we  stand  upon  the  bed-rock  of  irrefutable 
demonstration.     This  is  true    of    archaeological    research, 
particularly  where  we  have  to  deal  with  a  savage  race,  a 
people  without  written  language,  but  with,  almost  unfor 
tunately,  a  pictographic  tendency,  for  such  pictographs  as 
remain  are  not  often  readily  deciphered,  at  least  to  every 
body's  satisfaction.     So  far  as  the  Indian  population  of  the 
Delaware  Valley  is  concerned,  we  have  the  single  fact  that 
such  a  people  as  the  Lenni  Lenape  were  at  one  time  in 
sole  and  undisputed  possession  of  the  territory  now  known 
as  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.     Beyond  this  statement, 
caution  is  constantly  called  for.    Credulity  must  be  checked 
at  every  turn.     However  plain  the  case,  when  a  single  vil 
lage  site  is  carefully  explored,  our  deductions  are  likely  to 
be  set  aside  by  unearthing  another  site  not  far  away.     But 
all  this  is  of  little  moment  when  compared  to  the  experi 
ence  awaiting  the  student  of  the  antiquity  of  these  people. 
His  best  evidence  to-day  of  a  great  lapse  of  time  may  be 
successfully  set  aside  by  the  discoveries  of  to-morrow,  and 
perhaps  not  yet  has  enough  been  done  to  warrant  an  ex 
pression  of  probable  length  of  time  since  man  first  sighted 
the  river  on  our  western  and  ocean  on  our  eastern  boundary. 
The  term   "historic  Indian"   is   a  misnomer.     It  really 
bears  the  relation  to  that  people  that  a  man's  funeral  notice 
does  to  his  life's  career. 


64 

Taking  as  rosy  a  view  as  is  permissible  from  the  writings 
of  the  early  chroniclers,  and  seeing  the  best  only  of  what 
eye-witnesses  narrate,  exaggerating  every  noble  quality  and 
minimizing  all  that  which  we  wish  had  not  been,  it  is  never 
theless  evident  to  us,  as  it  was  not  to  the  missionary  or 
explorer  of  three  centuries  ago,  that  the  Indian  was  then 
degenerating  in  a  sense,  that  he  was  not  what  he  had  been, 
that  his  career  as  a  "nation"  had  seen  its  rise  and  now 
was  falling,  and  while  the  most  intelligent  among  them  may 
have  been  endeavoring,  at  the  time  of  the  white  man's  ar 
rival,  to  upbuild  and  reconstruct  their  race,  it  was  really  a 
hopeless  case,  and  there  was  then  and  had  been  a  steady 
lowering  process  in  progress  and  savagery  becoming  more 
pronounced  rather  than  less  so.  However  might  have  been 
the  outcome  of  the  contest,  if  such  there  were,  between  the 
better  and  the  worser  element,  the  discovery  of  America 
by  Columbus  sounded  the  Indian's  death-knell.  No  progress 
could  afterwards  be  made.  The  Europeanized  Indian  is 
not  a  .successful  type  of  humanity.  He  must  be  one  or  the 
other. 

That  the  Lenni  Lenape  had  been  in  more  flourishing  con 
dition  than  when  first  interviewed  by  the  evil-designing 
European,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  much  had  frequent 
place  and  so  stood  for  much  in  their  estimation  which  had 
wholly  disappeared,  or  why  had  it  not  attracted  the  early 
travelers'  attention  and  they  in  turn  explained  the  signifi 
cance  thereof?  The  archaeologist  of  to-day  is  now  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  calling  certain  forms  of  stone  imple 
ments  "ceremonial  objects,"  but  who-  knows  aught  of  the 
ceremony  and  what  it  stood  for  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
took  part  in  it?  The  most  difficult  to  fashion,  that  which 
cost  the  most  labor  and  exhibits  the  greatest  skill  and 
knowledge  of  symmetrical  expression,  is  the  object  of  which 
we  know,  not  the  least,  but  absolutely  nothing.  Banner- 


65 

stones,  bird-shaped  stones,  boat-like  stones,  irregularly  pit 
ted  slabs,  gorgets  with  many  notches,  lines,  dots,  swastikas, 
and  various  arrangements  thereof,  must  have  meaning. 
These  markings  are  not  likely  to  be  simply  an  attempt  at 
ornamentation,  they  are  so  inconspicuous.  What  of  the 
idols  of  the  Delaware  Indians?  John  Brainerd,1  while  a 
missionary  among  the  Indians  of  New  Jersey,  recorded  of 
one  of  these  people,  that  "she  had  an  aunt  *  *  *  who 
kept  an  idol  image,  which,  indeed  partly  belonged  to  her, 
and  that  she  had  a  mind  to  go  and  fetch  her  aunt  and  the 
image,  that  it  might  be  burnt;  but  when  she  went  to  the 
place  she  found  nobody  at  home,  and  the  image  also  was 
taken  away/'  While  this,  indeed,  is  slender  evidence  of  the 
occurrence  of  idol-worship  among  the  Delaware  Indians, 
it  is  of  interest  in  showing  that  images  were  not  unknown, 
and  that  they  possessed  other  significance  and  value  than 
as  mere  ornaments.  Any  carving  in  wood  or  stone,  merely 
used  for  personal  decoration,  would  not  have  become  sinful 
in  the  mind  of  an  Indian  woman,  through  the  preaching  of 
the  missionary;  and  a  desire  to  destroy  the  object  she  re 
ported  as  in  her  possession  must  necessarily  have  arisen 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  regarded  with  superstitious  rev 
erence  and  invested  with  supernatural  powers,  in  their 
belief. 

Had  Brainerd  been  less  fanatical  and  realized  what  Na 
ture's  purposes  are  in  dealing  with  mankind,  he  would  have 
made  an  effort  to  secure  and  preserve  as  many  idols  as 
possible  and  given  us  a  dissertation  upon  their  place  in 
Indian  economics.  But  those  were  days  of  intellectual 
darkness,  when  the  effort  at  conversion  was  nothing  more 
than  the  blind  leading  the  blind,  the  unhappy,  perverted 
Indian  woman  seeing  far  less  clearly  under  Brainerdian  ex- 


1  Abbott:    American  Naturalist.     October,  1882,  p.  709. 
5   AB 


66 

poundings  than  when  led  by  the  teachings  of  her  own 
people. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  woman  desired  that  the  idol 
be  destroyed  by  fire,  thus  suggesting  that  it  was  made  of 
some  such  perishable  material  as  wood.  If  of  stone,  doubt 
less  she  would  have  spoken  of  breaking  it,  and  such  idols 
are  not  unknown,  if  the  human  head  carved  in  stone,  such 
as  that  found  by  Rev.  Samuel  I^ockwood,  near  Keyport, 
N.  J.,  is  an  idol,  or  Me  sink,  and  then  what  of  the  standing 
stones,  suggestively  incised  with  lines  or  plain,  that  stood 
in  many  places  until  finally  overthrown  by  the  farmer  when 
they  were  in  his  way  ?  Of  all  this  matter,  we  know  only  that 
we  know  nothing,  save  that  the  Indian  had  developed  a  re 
ligion  that  was  a  step  or  two  in  advance  of  utter  innocence 
of  this  stage  of  intellectual  status.  If  nothing  of  all  this 
was  developed  in  the  territory  now  under  consideration,  it 
certainly  required  many  years  for  expressions  of  it  to  be  so 
universally  scattered,  as  they  were  at  the  time  of  their  leav 
ing  the  lands  not  more  of  their  fathers  than  of  their  remote 
ancestry.  On  many  a  long-occupied  village  site,  "prob 
lematical"  objects  are  still  found,  and  almost  to  a  certainty 
unsolved  problems  will  hover  over  these  sites  until  every 
trace  of  them  is  beyond  recognition. 

A  flood  of  light  would  be  thrown  upon  aboriginal  history 
did  we  know  what  the  problematical  objects  were  to  their 
makers;  but  no  missionary  or  traveler  seems  ever  to  have 
seen  them,  or  seeing,  to  have  sought  information,  when  he 
might  have  obtained  it.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Antiquarian 
Society  of  Philadelphia,  some  years  ago,  the  late  Frank  H. 
Gushing,  by  means  of  a  large  series  of  these  objects,  scarcely 
two  of  which  were  alike  except  in  general  character,  dem 
onstrated  the  descent  of  the  double-winged  banner-stone 
from  the  double-bladed  war-axe.  The  double-bladed  war- 
axe,  represented  both  in  the  hand  and  on  the  head-dress 


67 

of  the  figures  impressed  on  copper  from  the  Eutaw  mounds 
in  Georgia,  served  as  an  intermediary  link,  the  banner- 
stone  of  beautifully  banded  slate  being*  the  warrior's  badge, 
carried  as  an  axe  or  worn  upon  the  breast.  Mr.  Gushing" 
suggested  the  Southern  source  of  these  symbolic  specimens, 
tracing  them  to  the  extreme  South,  where  they  exist  as 
practical  weapons. 


Fig.  6.  Ceremonial  objects,  of  various  patterns,  are  common  in  New 
Jersey.  The  one  represented  by  the  drawing  is  of  less  frequent  occur 
rence  than  those  with  the  "wings"  narrower  and  longer 

It  is  possible  that  this  object,  Fig.  6,  may  have  originated 
independently  here  in  New  Jersey,  as  modifications  and  am 
plifications  of  naturally  perforated  pebbles,  but  the  chances 
are  against  this  and  favor  Mr.  Gushing  being  right  in  his 
surmise.  Dr.  Brinton's  objections  have  no  weight,  for  if 
double-bladed  axes  were  ever  in  use  here,  some  traces  of 
them  would  be  found,  but  as  they  have  not  been,  it  is  fair  to 
presume  that  the  "banner-stone"  of  this  region,  if  a  deriva 
tive,  was  derived  from  the  South,  and  so  the  New  Jersey  In 
dian  had  a  Southern  origin,  as  the  Walum  Olam  seems  to 
suggest,  but  his  coming  was  so  gradual  an  approach  that  it 
could  scarcely  be  called  migratory.  If  not,  then  "banner- 
stones"  might  have  first  been  made  known  to  them  by  inter- 


68 

tribal  commerce.  The  contention  is,  that  an  article  of  abso 
lutely  no  use,  but  symbolic  only,  and  so-  foreign  to  the  pur 
poses  of  migratory  people  and  not  long  established  at  any 
one  locality,  would  not  have  been  made,  as  thousands  of  them 
were,  by  the  Lenape,  had  they  not  been  here  in  the  valley  of 
the  Delaware  for  ages,  and  not  merely  sojourners  here  under 
the  rule  of  eleven  successive  chiefs. 

It  is  rather  disheartening  to  find  opportunities  for  illumi 
nating  archaeological  research  lost  because  of  an  unconquer 
able  inclination  to  resurrect  and  rehabilitate  the  righteously 
buried  whimsies  of  forgotten  visionaries.  Even  "the  lost 
tribes  of  Israel"  have  been  looked  to  for  comfort  in  endeav 
oring  to  solve  the  problem  of  America's  aboriginal  man. 
Dr.  Boudinot  thought  he  had  made  out  his  case,  a  century 
ago,  but  this  is  all  forgotten  now.  The  origin  of  the  Ameri 
can  Indian  is  a  geological  question  primarily  and  archaeo 
logical  secondarily.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  history 
proper,  or  with  tradition  that  so  frequently  masquerades 
successfully  as  a  veritable  record  of  the  past. 

How  far  the  use  of  wood  was  general  for  domestic,  agri 
cultural1  and  warlike  purposes  is  now  undeterminable,  but 
it  may  have  been  far  greater  than  the  accounts  of  early 
writers  lead  us  to  suppose,  and  if  so1,  considering  the  vast 
quantity  of  stone  implements  still  found,  and  these  but  a 
fraction  of  the  Indian's  entire  possessions,  then  but  one  of 
two  conclusions  can  be  reached.  Either  there  was  a  vastly 
greater  population  than  has  been  believed,  or  the  people 
occupied  the  country  for  a  much  longer  period  than  the 
traditionalists  so  confidently  claim.  The  harder  woods,  if 


1  The  stone  spades  and  hoes,  shoulder  blades  of  elk  or  dear,  clam 
shells ;  all  have  been  reported  as  used  in  cultivation  of  maize,  but  Lucien 
Carr  asserts  wooden  hoes  were  most  common.  Mounds  of  Mississippi 
Valley,  historically  considered,  pp.  9,  14,  20,  25. 


69 

at  all  protected,  are  not  so  very  perishable,  yet  who  now 
living  has  seen  a  bow,  shaft  of  an  arrow,  a  canoe,  or  even 
a  war-club,  that  unquestionably  was  made  and  used  by  a 
Delaware  Indian  in  the  Delaware  Valley?  Buried  in  the 
mud,  these  objects  should  still  be  preserved — wooden  boats 
a  thousand  years  old  have  been  found  in  Europe — but  so 
far  as  my  own  observation  extends,  I  know  only  of  two 
mortars,  not  authenticated,  a  paddle  that  may  have  been 
whittled  by  a  white  man  and  a  long  wooden  club  that  cannot 
be  proved  to  be  of  Indian  origin,  although  this  is  very  prob 
able.  Canoes,  for  instance,  were  hollowed  out  from  logs 
and  were  in  constant  use  among  the  river  Indians,  and  the 
number  of  them  must  necessarily  have  been  very  great,  yet 
every  one  of  thousands  has  disappeared.  This  fact  is  not 
an  argument  for  the  antiquity  of  the  race,  except  so  far  as 
it  shows  that  we  have  not  so  much  to  go  by  in  our  estimates 
of  what  has  been  as  we  may  think,  judging  only  by  the 
objects  of  stone  and  fragments  of  pottery. 

Could  we  have  a  view  of  an  Indian  riverside  village,  such 
as  once  occupied  the  ground  on  both  sides  of  the  river  at 
the  head  of  tide- water,  we  would  see  the  gently  sloping 
shores  lined  with  canoes  and  the  river  dotted  with  men  in 
other  boats  passing  from  shore  to  shore,  or  going  down  the 
stream  to  their  villages  at  the  mouths  of  the  many  inflowing 
creeks,  or  laboriously  working  their  way  up-stream  among 
the  uplifted  rocks  that  here  block  the  further  passage  of 
the  tide.  Perhaps  a  canoe1  without  a  passenger  has  drifted 


xln  an  unpublished  MS.  bearing  date  of  2ist  of  5th  m|o.  1758,  con 
cerning  the  establishment  of  the  settlement  of  Wyomink,  I  find  as  fol 
lows :  "they  (Indians)  went  away  about  10  o'clock,  and  soon  after 
showed  us  a  mark  of  friendship,  which  was,  as  they  went  up  the  river 
about  six  miles  above  the  town  they  found  (as  afterwards  we  had 
cause  to  believe)  a  number  of  canoes  and  paddles  a  lying  on  the  shore, 
(which  beyond  doubt  a  large  number  of  enemies  had  brought  there 
and  were  gone  to  do  hurt  at  the  Minisink)  they  took  twenty-eight  of 
6  AB 


70 

by  and  all  is  excitement,  for  by  such  means  many  a  warning 
of  approaching  danger  has  been  sent.  Back  from  the  river 
on  the  fertile  rising  shores  are  orchards,  both  of  nuts  and 
fruits,  even  at  last  peaches,  which,  derived  from  the  Span 
iards  in  Florida  and  brought  hither,  now  flourished  so  ad 
mirably  that  in  1680,  an  English  settler  compared  them  to 
"ropes  of  onions."  The  smoke  from  many  a  cooking-site 
floated  above  the  tree-trops,  and  while  Nature  was  not  dis 
turbed  and  the  world  here  still  retained  that  pristine  fresh 
ness  that  makes  life  so  well  worth  living,  man  \vas  busy 
everywhere.  The  maize  fields  were  models  of  careful  cul 
ture.  There  was  work  for  every  one,  yet  time  for  pday. 
There  were  many  games  known  to  them,  and  there  the 
dance,  perhaps,  about  those  monoliths  that  stood  in  open 
spaces  and  many  a  painted  post.  There  was  every  indica 
tion  of  a  long-continued  settlement,  an  aboriginal  town  or 
centre  here,  and  the  innumerable  burials,  in  both  upland 
and  what  is  now  a  meadow,  still  show  convincingly  that  the 
ancient  man  was  no  uncertain  nomad,  here  to-day  and  gone 
to-morrow.  The  falls  of  the  Delaware  were  early  fixed 
upon  as  the  natural  centre  of  a  race  that,  long-established 
here,  flourished  for  centuries  and  then  was  overtaken  by 
some  swift  disaster  or  slow-destroying  intellectual  cancer 
that  gradually  sapped  their  strength.  We  are  fairly  sure 
that  this  much  we  know,  but  the  underlying  cause  mu^t 
remain  a  mystery.  The  invading  European,  tyrannical, 
fanatical  and  devoid  of  justice,  saw  but  the  last  act  of  the 


the  paddles  and  put  them  in  a  bark  canoe  and  set  her  adrift  to  float 
down  the  stream,  in  order  to  give  us  notice  there  were  enemies  near 
us  and  might  be  in  danger,  as  they  supposed."  *  *  *  Titeusquand  later 
explained  the  occurrence,  saying,  "I  have  been  seven  miles  up  the  river 
where  I  have  found  more  canoes  and  paddles,  which  were  brought  here 
by  French  Indians  *  *  *  as  for  the  canoe  coming  down  with  paddles, 
these  men  that  went  up  to-day  put  the  paddles  in  the  canoe  and  sent 
her  here  with  the  stream  that  we  might  see  how  matters  stood." 


drama,  of  this  we  may  be  sure,  and  nothing  of  the  telling 
incidents  of  their  career,  and  heroic  struggles  to  reach  that 
stage  of  culture  that  once  was  theirs.  The  English,  as  did 
the  Dutch  and  Swedes  before  them,  saw  but  the  backs  of 
departing  Indians,  and  theirs  it  was  to  let  fall  the  curtain 
that  shut  them  from  view  forever. 

Henry  W.  Haynes,  in  an  illuminating  paper  on  the  Agri 
cultural  Implements  of  the  New  England  Indians,1  after 
commenting  upon  the  accounts  of  early  writers,  adds,  signifi 
cantly,  "But  in  this  instance,  as  in  so  many  others,  the 
authorities  have  not  told  us  the  whole  story  by  any  means, 
and  archaeology  comes  in  with  the  most  irrefragable  proofs/' 
How  true  this  is  becomes  impressive  indeed,  unless  the  stu 
dent  is  hopelessly  adrift  through  preconceived  erroneous 
ideas,  as  we  have  already  seen  is  sometimes  the  case.  It  is 
as  fatal  to  the  truth  to  unwarrantably  modernize  traces  of 
early  man  as  to  ascribe  to  them  unreasonable  antiquity. 
There  is  ever  the  safe  middle-ground,  a  coign  of  vantage, 
wherefrom  the  outlook  is  never  obscured,  where  every  con 
dition  and  its  value  is  recognized  and  the  final  decision  can 
be  made  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction. 

The  impression  of  antiquity  is  not  a  fatuous  condition, 
and  reason  retires  to  the  background  whenever  a  stone  im 
plement  is  picked  up.  There  is,  besides  the  physical  sight, 
mental  vision  that  projects  itself  beyond  the  naked  fact  of 
a  stone  lying  in  the  dirt.  The  "modernist"  feels  this  as  well 
as  others,  but  dishonesty  is  his  overpowering  passion.  He 
will  not  reason  with  himself.  Even  the  single  fact  that 
stone-implement  manufacture  was  discarded  promptly  on 
the  appearance  of  the  white  man  has  been  vehemently 
denied.  It  has  been  said  that  a  decomposed  argillite  fish- 
spear  might  have  been  chipped  on  the  very  day  that  Penn 


1  Proceedings,  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History,  vol.  xxii,  No 
vember,  1883. 


72 

treated  with  the  Indians  at  Shackamaxon,  notwithstand 
ing  that  the  most  recent  of  these  or  other  patterns  chipped 
at  Black's  Eddy  show  practically  no  signs  of  disintegration 
when  compared  with  argillite  implements  from  central  and 
southern  New  Jersey.  Determination  to  attain  an  end 
sometimes  leads  to  most  unwise  selection  of  means  where 
with  to<  accomplish  it. 

There  are  conditions  familiar  to  every  experienced  col 
lector  of  Indian  relics  that  are  explicable  in  more  than  one 
way,  and  not  always  is  the  apparently  simplest  solution  of 
the  problem  necessarily  the  correct  one.  This  is  notably 
true  of  the  occasional  occurrence  here  of  objects  character 
istic  of  a  section  of  the  country  hundreds  of  miles  distant. 
If  we  accept  the  recent  migratory  origin  of  the  Delaware 
Indians,  for  instance,  it  is  easy  to'  understand  that  objects 
procured  in  a  district  through  which  these  people  passed 
might  have  been  retained  until  they  found  a  final  resting- 
place  in  the  valley  of  the  Delaware.  This  is  very  reasonable 
when  we  refer  to  forms  rarely  found  here  but  common  in 
the  mound-building  districts  of  Ohio,  or  in  the  nearest  of 
the  southern  states,  but  is  less  and  less  likely  an  explanation 
of  such  objects  as  Catlinite  tobacco-pipes  and  ornaments, 
which,  must  have  been  brought  from  Minnesota,  or  flakes  of 
obsidian,  now  knives  and  scrapers,  from  even  more  remote 
localities,  and  what  of  a  bead  made  of  a  shell  that  belongs  on 
the  west  coast  of  Panama  ? 

Even  if  the  Delaware  Indians  moved  in  a  body  into  New 
Jersey,  by  a  circuitous  route,  or  a  straggling  band  of  this 
people  accidently  wandered  here  from  their  original  home, 
how  little  probability  there  is  that  any  but  their  most  press 
ing  needs  would  be  considered,  and  how  likely  what  they 
required  would  be  furnished  by  the  available  materials  found 
in  the  sections  through  which  they  passed.  A  migratory 
movement  is  never  a  rapid  one.  This  asserted  one  of  the 


73 

Delaware  Indians  was  not  a  grand  exodus  under  compul 
sion.  It  must  have  been,  in  those  days,  with  that  people,  a 
slow  pushing-  outward,  first  in  this  direction  and  then  that, 
and,  if  met  with  opposition,  the  delay  in  traveling  far  in 
any  one  direction  might  be  greatly  prolonged.  Little,  likely, 
of  personal  possessions  would  remain  after  years  of  wander 
ing,  and  over  a  wide  extent  of  territory,  of  that  with  which 
they  set  out.  Indeed,  is  it  at  all  probable  that  any  of  the 
individuals  of  the  original  band  would  be  alive  by  the  time 
the  migratorial  journey,  if  we  may  call  it  such,  was  ended? 
We  know,  too,  how  general  was  the  custom  to  bury  their 
cherished  personal  possessions  with  the  dead. 

There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  another  explanation  that  is, 
it  seems  to  me,  more  reasonable,  that  of  inter-tribal  com 
merce.  How  far  such  a  custom  ever  existed,  it  is  impossible 
to  determine,  but  if  it  be  true,  and  there  is  no  valid  reason 
to  question  it,  that  a  pipe-maker1  wandered  from  the  Missis 
sippi  to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  taking  five  years 
to  perform  the  journey,  then  there  is  less  improbability  in 
some  objects  reaching  New  Jersey  that  came  as  far  only  as 
the  copper  mines  of  Lake  Superior,  the  mica  deposits  of 
North  Carolina,  catlinite  from  Minnesota,  and  even  obsidian 
from  the  far  west.  It  is  a  tempting  subject  for  speculation, 
with  but  little  chance  of  complete  demonstration,  but  if  my 
contention  of  protracted  occupation  of  the  Delaware  valley 
holds  good,  it  is  quite  as  plausible  as  any  other  explanation 
proposed.  Only  among  tribes  or  "nations,"  long  located  in 
some  one  well-defined  locality,  is  such  commerce  likely  to  be 
well-established.  It  is  something  more  than  mere  barter. 
It  is  distinctly  a  feature  of  fixed  conditions  and  that  have 
been  long-fixed  and  are  generally  known.  That  the  Dela 
ware  Indians  were  an  important  people  among  the  aborigines 
of  North  American,  no  one  denies.  They  were  recognized 

1  DuPratz,  History  of  Louisiana,  vol.  ii,  p.  128.    London,  1763. 


74 

as  a  nation  that  were  to  be  honestly  dealt  with.  Individuals 
on  trading  expeditions  knew  that  their  rights  would  be 
acknowledged  at  home,  and  if  violated,  in  times  of  peace, 
would  be  avenged. 

That  obsidian,  that  is  not  found  east  of  the  Mississippi, 
should  find  its  way  to  the  middle  country,  and  from  there 
occasionally  to  the  Atlantic  coast,  is  not  an  unthinkable 
proposition,  however  improbable  it  may  seem  at  first.  The 
fact,  however,  remains  that  these  foreign  productions  do 
occur  here  and  that  the  Indian  brought  them.  They  have 
been  found  under  circumstances  that  set  aside  all  possibility 
of  their  presence  being  attributed  to  erven  the  earliest  Euro 
pean  travelers,  and  if  a  scanty  trace  of  an  established  trade 
with  distant  tribes,  then  their  little  weight  of  evidence  is 
wholly  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  Indians  of  the  valley 
of  the  Delaware  were  not  recent-comers  into  this  region, 
finding  it  an  uninhabited  country. 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  is  included  in  the  generic  or  com 
prehensive  name,  Delaware  Indians,  or  what,  rather,  by  their 
own  designation  of  Lenni  Lenape?  They  were  not,  when 
discovered  by  the  Europeans,  what  we  might  call  a  homo^ 
geneous  people.  There  were  the  grand  divisions  of  Minsi, 
Unami  and  Unalachtgo,1  and  known  by  their  totems  as 
wolves,  turtles  and  turkeys.  They  not  only  occupied  differ 
ent  portions  of  the  river-valley  and  adjacent  country,  but 


1  The  Lenape  were  divided  into  three  sub-tribes  : 

Minsi,  properly  Minsiu  and  formerly  Minassiniu,  means  "people  of 
the  stony  country,"  or,  briefly,  "mountaineers." 

Unami,  or  W'namiu,  means  "people  down  the  river,"  from  naheu, 
down  stream. 

Unalachtigo,  properly,  W'natachtko,  means  "people  who  live  near 
the  ocean,"  from  wunulawat,  to  go  towards,  and  t'kow  or  t'kou,  wave. 

The  Lenape  and  their  Legends,  by  D.  G.  Brinton.  Library  of 
American  Aboriginal  Literature,  No.  v,  p.  36.  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  1885. 


75 

there  were  dialectic  differences  that  are  of  marked  signifi 
cance.  Did  these  divisions  exist  prior  to  migration?  If  so, 
would  they  have  been  retained  during  it?  It  is  not  probable. 
A  wandering  community  is  a  disorganized  one  in  many 
respects.  After  a  permanent  settlement  has  been  made,  and 
it  is  felt  to  be  such,  permanent  organization  and  complicated 
social  condition  develops.  Then  these  wandering  Indians, 
widely  separated  and  living  now  in  regions  as  wholly  unlike 
as  the  Delaware  Water  Gap  and  Cape  May,  with  still  a 
different  country  between  the  extremes,  might  well  become 
organized  as  wolves,  turtles  and  turkeys,  and  in  time  marked 
changes  in  language  be  brought  about.  Mankind  in  the 
mass  cannot  be  hurried.  The  element  of  time  is  all  essential 
and  the  conditions  obtaining  among  the  Delaware  Indians, 
when  first  seen  by  the  Europeans,  the  Swedes,  Dutch  and 
English,  were  all  such  as  preclude  the  possibility  of  the 
earlier  people,  being  themselves  immigrants  within  meas 
urable  time. 

When,  on  the  high  interior  plateaus  of  the  southern  coun 
ties  of  New  Jersey,  we  find  traces  of  the  Indian,  and  gather 
potsherds,  implements  and  charred  bones  of  animals  that 
had  been  used  as  food,  there  is  in  the  single  evidence  in 
stance  evidence  only  of  the  Indian  tarrying  here,  but  when 
after  years  of  experience  in  examining  such  one-time  sites 
of  aboriginal  life,  we  find  that  differences  exist  and  that 
the  site  at  one  location  was  not  like  that  of  another,  it  is 
natural,  indeed  is  imperative,  if  we  would  know  the  truth, 
that  the  reason  for  such  differences  should  be  made  plain. 
They  do  exist  and  they  are  of  two  unrelated  characters. 
There  is  the  difference  of  the  historic  Indian  jasper,  quartz 
and  pottery  condition,  in  that  in  one  locality  it  is  elaborate 
and  in  the  other,  the  same  materials  occurring,  it  is  extreme 
ly  rude.  There  is  no  discoverable  difference  in  the  horizon. 
So  far  as  present  conditions  point,  the  two  sites  might  have 


76 

been  occupied  on  the  same  day.  There  is  no  apparent  reason 
why  one  should  not  show  as  great  skill  in  the  fashioning  of 
its  object  of  daily  use  as  the  other,  but  the  fact  exists  and 
why  ?  It  is  not  a  case  analogous  to  what  now  obtains.  The 
extremes  of  vast  wealth  and  abject  poverty  were  unknown 
to  the  Lenni  Lenape.  There  doubtless,  as  at  present,  were 
wise  men  and  poor  fools,  but  the  weapons,  household  utensils 
and  agricultural  outfits  did  not  greatly  vary.  We  have  no 
warrant  for  any  such  conclusion,  and  the  alternative  is,  that 
the  Indian  advanced  materially  after  he  reached  this  part  of 
the  world.  If  so,  the  village  or  wigwam  site,  with  the  rudely 
chipped  implements,  coarse  pottery  and  generally  primitive 
outfit,  is  older  than  that  where  all  the  indications  are  of 
stone-age  culture  at  its  zenith.  If  this  can  be  shown  to  be 
the  case,  then  the  assumption  of  the  recent  (i.  e.,  1397 :  vide 
Mercer)  appearance  of  the  Delaware  Indian  in  this  region 
falls  to  the  ground,  unless  it  is  admitted  that  on  arrival  they 
displaced  or  absorbed  a  people  who  had  long  preceded  them. 
There  is  little  to  indicate  any  other  view  than  that  the  Dela 
ware  Indian  did  come  from  some  point  of  the  compass  other 
than  east,  but  it  was  so  long  ago  that  the  surface  conditions 
of  the  country  were  very  unlike  what  they  now  are. 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth,  there  is  a  variation 
from  this  condition  of  differing  village  sites  on  apparently 
the  same  horizons,  and  that  is  sites  distinctly  one  above  the 
other.  These  have  more  than  once  been  brought  to  light. 
We  are  apt  to  speak  so  glibly  nowadays  of  shifting  sands 
and  of  the  sudden  overwhelming  of  some  green  and  grassy 
location  by  an  irruption  of  wind-blown  sand.  All  very 
well  when  treating  of  a  seacoast  or  a  desert,  but  when  the 
Delaware  Indian  took  possession  of  this  part  of  the  country, 
the  plains  between  the  river  and  the  sea,  there  were  no 
such  desert-like  areas,  due  to  deforesting  the  land.  Vege 
tation  covered  and  protected  the  sandy  soil,  and  it  needs 


77 

but  very  little  of  it  to  hold  such  sandy  areas  in  check,  how 
ever  the  March  winds  may  rage.  The  Indians'  maize-fields 
were  not  without  protection,  too,  from  the  surrounding 
forests.  It  was,  therefore,  not  so  easy  a  matter  for  Nature 
to  cover  up  the  earth-scars  the  Indians'  needs  caused.  A 
village  site  if  abandoned,  would  quickly  become  covered 
with  grass  and  weeds,  but  little  else  would  reach  it.  The 
rains  would  not  wash  it  away  nor  carry  enough  sand  to 
inhume  it  in  a  year  or  a  decade.  Decomposition  of  autumn 
leaves  and  annual  weed-growths  would  yearly  spread  but  a 
thin  film  over  it,  yet  in  time  there  was  a  change.  The  char 
coal  and  ashes  are  lost  to  view,  the  potsherds  are  buried,  the 
axe,  the  knife  and  the  arrow  are  mingled  with  the  dust  and  in 
time  a  giant  oak  or  towering  ash  flourishes  where  once  the 
ground  was  bare;  all  this  has  again  and  again  been  traced, 
and  when  superficial  examination  has  been  followed  by  ex 
haustive  exploration,  beneath  the  Indian  site  that  disap 
peared  long  ages  ago,  there  is  found  yet  another  series  of 
equally  telling  objects  that  were  in  turn,  through  the  same 
agencies,  lost  and  forgotten,  faded  wholly  from  the  mem 
ory  of  the  ancient  men  who  dwelt  upon  the  upper  site. 
It  is  when  these  superimposed  proofs  of  early  occupation 
are  brought  to  the  archaeologist's  attention — not  the  objects 
themselves,  arranged  in  museum  cases — that  he  begins  to 
realize  what  Mr.  Haynes  has  well  called  "the  irrefragable 
proofs"  of  his  science.  It  is  no  longer  a  mere  unearthing 
of  curiosities  to  please  an  idle  moment,  but  the  opening  up 
of  a  vista  that  leads  the  mind  safely  and  surely  back  towards 
the  beginning  of  humanity's  career,  and  we  see,  not  as 
through  a  glass  darkly  but  with  the  clear  vision  of  an  un 
biased  mind,  what  has  been  and  have  more  than  intimation 
of  when,  if  not,  why,  or  how.  And  when  this  is  the  reward 
of  the  archaeologist's  toil,  as  happily  so  often  it  has  been, 
then  the  value  of  tradition  that  makes  all  a  matter  of  yes 
terday,  is  small  indeed. 


CONCLUSION. 

However  dexterous  the  ancient  man  of  America  may 
have  been,  however  hopelessly  wrapt  in  mystery  his  origin, 
however  puzzling  the  many  examples  of  his  handicraft,  and 
repugnant  to  us  the  greater  number  of  his  customs  and  be 
liefs,  now  that  they  are  but  a  feature  of  a  distant  past,  did 
not  age  lend  a  charm  to  every  tangible  trace  we  find,  the 
main  incentive  to  study  him  or  them  would  be  lacking. 
Antiquity  wanting,  not  a  relic  that  we  gather  but  would 
hold  the  place  of  a  flower  without  color,  a  rose  without  odor, 
a  man  without  a  mind.  It  is  not  that  we  may  coldly  calcu 
late  the  exact  number  of  years  since  an  axe  was  shaped  or 
an  arrow-point  was  chipped,  for  a  few  centuries,  more  or 
less,  matters  nothing.  It  is  the  feeling  of  being  brought  face 
to  face  with  days  so  far  long  gone-by  that  mystery  invests 
them ;  a  feeling  too  of  seeing  as  we  never  saw  before,  what 
has  been.  This  it  is  that  captures  the  mind,  kindles  en 
thusiasm,  and  more  than  this,  broadens  our  knowledge,  not 
alone  of  our  own  age,  but  of  that  which  preceded  and  af 
fected  it.  It  was  not  so  long  ago  that  myth  held  the  place 
now  awarded  to  sober  fact.  The  archaeologist  is  dealing 
with  humanity,  and  though  here  in  the  valley  of  the  Dela 
ware  with  a  phase  of  it  that  rises  not  very  far  above  its 
lowest  limits,  still  it  is  sufficient  to  make  us  sympathetic  and 
desirous  that  the  truth  shall  make  us  generous  to  their 
memory. 

An  axe  or  an  arrow-point  cannot  be  picked  up  in  a  newly- 
ploughed  field  without  a  thought  of  its  original  owner.  We 
wonder  about  him,  for  no  element  of  doubt  enters  as  to  his 
one-time  existence.  We  ask  ourselves  questions  and,  if  wise, 
wait  patiently  for  a  reply  that  comes  at  last,  when  we  have 
gathered  hundreds  of  objects.  We  are  too  gross  in  our 


79 

make-up,  these  prosy  days,  to  become  in  touch  with  any 
single  example  of  the  Indian's  skill,  but  an  array  of 
his  work  in  every  phase  of  his  manifold  industries  does  ap 
peal  to  all  so  strongly  that  the  man  behind  the  display  is 
dimly  discovered.  A  very  shadowy  figure,  and  at  the  best 
but  vaguely  comprehended,  but  still  enough  of  a  fact  to  be 
acknowledged  as  within  the  scope  of  brotherhood.  Enthusi 
asm  may  go  too  far,  but  I  for  one  am  free  to  confess  that 
when  I  read  of  vast  reservations  of  timber  land,  wherein  a 
botanist  can  roam  and  be  happy,  and  other  areas  set  apart 
for  the  protection  of  game,  wherein  the  sportsman  can  in 
dulge  his  murderous  appetite,  I  wish  there  was  still  some 
where  a  few  million  acres  of  wild  land,  wherein  untamed, 
unchanged  and  Nature-fashioned  Indians  were  allowed  to 
live  in  peace.  Probably  from  them,  if  such  there  were,  we 
might  learn  much  and  many  a  hopeless  tangle  be  made 
straight  and  intelligible.  Only,  I  think,  through  restoration 
of  original  conditions,  will  we  be  able  to  know  the  whole 
truth.  This  is  impossible  and  much  ignorance  is  our  lot. 
The  past  can  never  return,  nor  is  it  well  that  it  should,  but 
our  interest  in  it,  so  far  as  these  people  are  concerned,  can 
never  die  so  long  as  relics  continue  to  be  found,  whenever 
we  wander  where  once  they  filled  the  scene,  although  the 
moccasin-print  of  the  hunter-warrior  and  patient  squaw 
have  long  been  obliterated.  Here  and  there  are  trifling  bits 
of  wild  land  still  very  much  as  the  Indian  knew  them.  Here 
the  irrefragable  proofs  of  their  one-time  presence  still  re 
main  and  every  object  that  we  hold  in  our  hands,  once  held 
in  theirs,  points  backward,  backward  only,  but  how  far? 
Here  is  the  parting  of  the  ways  of  many  who  have  reached 
this  point.  They  have  the  relics,  they  acknowledge  their 
origin,  they  admit  they  ante-date  the  epoch  of  the  invading 
white  man,  but  this  is  all.  It  is  all  that  need  be  known,  all 
that  can  be.  Is  this  true?  I  have  never  felt  content  to  let 


8o 

my  own  studies  and  reflections,  when  in  the  field,  cease  with 
the  decision  that  all  is  referrible  to  the  Indian  and  what  an 
Indian  is,  we  cannot  know.  It  is  a  most  unsatisfying  out 
come  of  long-continued  labor.  The  Europeans  succeeded 
the  Indian,  and  may  it  not  be,  that  the  Indian  succeeded  a 
people  distinct  from  and  inferior  to  themselves?  To  turn 
one's  back  on  such  a  question,  to  greet  with  a  sneer  any 
such  suggestion,  to  call  those  whose  impressions  lead  them 
to  think  otherwise,  visionaries  and  sensationalists,  is  not 
science,  but  exhibitions  of  that  weakness  which  still  links 
mankind  to  the  headstrong — I  will  not  say,  unreasoning — 
brute. 

When  I  stand  on  the  higher  ground  of  a  vastly  older  geo 
logical  formation,  extending  across  the  State  from  the  head 
of  tide-water  in  the  Delaware  river  to  the  sea,  and  look 
across  the  country  that  is  spread  before  me  far  to  the  east 
and  south,  and  looking  over  the  smoky  city  to  the  fair  fields, 
meadows  and  wooded  land  that  continue  until  lost  in  the 
horizon,  I  think  of  those  vexing,  mysterious  and  disputed 
chipped  pebbles  which  are  lying  in  the  gravel  and  on  many 
an  upland  field,  and  the  days  of  glacial  activity  come  back 
vividly  and  with  them  the  flooded  valley  with  its  wide  reach 
of  water,  and  I  perceive  that  the  now-continuous  land  was 
once  divided  by  a  stream  that  united  what  are  now  two  dis 
tinct  water-sheds.  The  present  canal  is,  as  it  were,  history 
repeating  itself,  the  waters  of  the  Raritan  and  of  the  Dela 
ware  once  mingling  in  a  long-since  obliterated  cross-country 
channel.  The  walrus,  the  seal,  the  whale  were  then  deni 
zens  of  this  forgotten  deep,  the  seal  alone  remaining  as  a 
reminder  of  other  and  far-different  days;  while  in  the  for 
ests  hardby,  the  musk-ox,  the  reindeer  and,  perhaps,  the 
mastodon  found  there  a  congenial  home,  and  man,  was  he 
here  then?  Did  he  then  know  that  struggle  for  existence 


8i 

that  he  now  knows  in  and  near  the  Arctic  circle?  The  tell 
tale  bones  of  the  animals  make  their  former  presence  cer 
tain,  but  no  bones  of  man,  though  many  have  been  found, 
have  yet  occurred  which  have  escaped  the  carping  criticism 
of  the  modernist.  That  such  ancient  and  Arctic  man  was 
here,  I  cannot  doubt.  His  bones  and  his  handiwork  are  no 
less  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  underlying  gravels  than  are 
those  of  the  Indian  in  the  overlying  soil  of  our  fields. 

Time  passed  and  many  the  changes  that  were  wrought  as 
the  slow  centuries  dragged  on.  The  old  waterway  was 
dried,  was  choked  with  earth,  was  hidden  from  view,  and 
forests  flourished  where  once  was  a  broad  outstretched  arm 
of  the  sea.  Man,  I  fancy,  felt  the  change  and  changed  with 
it.  The  old  conditions  that  figured  so  promiently  in  their 
past,  were  gradually  discarded,  as  we  discard  the  humbler 
utensils  with  which  our  ancestors  worried  through  a  happy 
existence.  The  innocent  ''palaeolithic"  that  now  rouses  to 
wordy  rage  the  uninstructed,  was  tossed  aside  for  better 
weapons,  and  necessarily  so,  for  the  new  order  brought  with 
it  more  wary,  if  not  new  forms  of  life,  which  human  skill 
must  now  outwit.  The  evolution  of  implements  was  in 
evitable.  Long  was  this  new  phase  of  humanity  sole  pos 
sessor  of  the  land.  His  increased  needs  called  for  more  than 
weapons,  but  the  blessing  of  inventive  faculty  was  never 
his  save  in  a  limited  measure.  What  was  this  man's  fate? 
Here  I  look  in  vain  for  any  clue  that  promises  success.  It 
may  be  that  he  had  the  bow,  it  may  be  that  he  had  boats, 
but  there  even  conjecture  must  halt.  The  traces  he  has  left 
behind  him  of  his  sojourn  here  are  in  the  sands  that  over 
an  extended  area  was  then  the  surface  of  the  plain,  but  since 
has  been  covered  by  the  slowly  accumulating  mold,  that  con- 
continued  growth  of  forest  produces.  An  open  and,  in  part, 
treeless  country,  it  may  be,  was  the  home  of  this  man  of 
specialized  argillite  implements  and  not  until  the  forests  re- 


82 

placed  the  rank  annual  growths  and  dwarf  shrubbery  gave 
way  to  giant  trees,  did  the  scene  again  change  and  the  In 
dian  appeared.  This  is  the  reading  of  Nature's  pages  since 
the  great  glaciers  dwindled  to  our  own  brief  winter's  ice. 
The  text  is  imperfect,  many  a  sentence  is  blotted  out,  often 
but  here  and  there  a  word  where  we  would  have  a  chapter, 
but  what  we  have  warrants,  I  maintain,  such  an  interpreta 
tion  as  I  have  given,  and  how  very  long  in  years  it  must 
have  been  for  this  to  happen !  There  is  nowhere  a  trace  left 
of  any  great  catastrophe.  No  violent  up-lifting  here  and 
sudden  sinking  there.  The  up-lift  was  gradual.  No  tidal 
wave  washed  over  a  million  acres  and  swept  a  whole  people 
out  to  sea.  There  was  no  difference,  one  year  with  another, 
but  centuries  varied  with  centuries,  and  what  no  individual 
suspected,  a  race  realized.  For  long,  before  the  encroaching 
ice-sheet  chilled  the  region  and  drove  man  before  it  from 
his  forest  home  among  the  hills,  the  country  was  a  veritable 
paradise  for  mammalian  life.  This  we  have  as  sure  knowl 
edge  of  as  that  the  hand  of  man  has  within  the  historic 
period  largely  destroyed  what  the  glaciers  spared.  Why 
not  this  savage  man  at  such  a  time?  A  product  of  Nature, 
as  other  mammals,  what  reason  can  be  adduced  to  warrant 
denying  his  existence  also  in  pre-glacial  time?  Then,  too, 
what  boundless  areas  of  inviting  land  were  south  of  the  ice- 
sheet's  range.  The  teasing  "palaeolith"  that  is  as  nothing  to 
so  many,  tells  others  of  this  ancient  man.  Is  it  probable  that 
such  men  should  have  originated  where  we  find  traces  of 
them,  during  the  close  of  the  ice-age?  Where  could  he  have 
come  from?  Not  from  the  south,  surely,  for  why  leave 
pleasant  lands  and  milder  climate  for  one  where  conditions 
were  far  more  exacting  ?  But  why  not  a  dweller  in  the  land 
before  it  was  blighted  by  an  Ice-Age  winter  ? 

As  I  look  from  the  present  highlands  over  the  scenes  of 
many  years  of  archaeological  research,  I  see,  or  seem  to  see, 


83 

these  things.  My  mind  is  deeply,  ineffaceably  impressed. 
The  many  inherent  difficulties  that  others  claim  are  fatal  to 
my  view,  are  resolved  to  idle  words  of  protest,  I  am  so 
much  in  earnest.  How  else  could  the  disposition  of  the 
thousands  of  relics  be  explained?  That  it  is  accidental  is 
for  me  unthinkable.  Happily,  however,  a  change  that  ad 
mits  no  dispute  did  come  about  and  at  the  last  we  have  only 
the  historic  Indian  with  whom  to  deal.  Had  he  been  a 
chronicler  using  decipherable  text,  we  would  not  now  be 
groping  in  the  dark  as  to  the  vastly  remote  past,  and,  too 
would  his  own  story  be  that  of  his  historians  ? 

When  as  many  a  day  has  drawn  to^  its  close,  while  yet  I 
lingered  in  the  field  and  every  sign  of  white  man's  industry 
faded  from  view,  the  scattered  trees  became  again  a  forest, 
the  cry  of  the  cougar  and  bleat  of  the  fawn  were  heard,  the 
bark  of  the  fox  and  howling  of  the  wolf  filled  the  air,  a  lurid 
light  of  a  camp-fire  lit  the  sky ;  the  days  of  the  Indian  had 
returned,  nor  did  the  illusion  pass  away  until  homeward 
bound,  my  hand  was  on  the  latch. 


Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 

No.  Ill 


BY 

Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


The   great    dim    centviries   of   long   ago 

Sweep  past  with  rain  and  fire,  with   wind   and  snow, 

And   where   the    Savage   swung   his  axe   of   stone 

The  blue  clay  silts  on   Titan   trunks  o'erthrown, 

O'er   mammoth's   tusks,    in   river-horse's  lair; 

And,   armed   with   deer  horn,   clad   in   girdled   hair, 

A   later   Savage   in   his   hollow   tree 

Hunts  the  strange  broods  of  a  primeval  sea." 


1909 


TRENTON,  N.  J. 
MacCrellish  &  Quigley,  Printers. 

1908. 


Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea 


No.  Ill 


BY 

Charles  Conrad  Abbott,  M.D. 


"  The  great  dim   centuries   of  long  ago 

Sweep  past  with  rain  and  fire,  with  wind  and  snow, 

And   where  the    Savage  swung   his  axe   of   stone 

The  blue  clay  silts  on  Titan  trunks  o'erthrown, 

O'er   mammoth's   tusks,   in   river-horse's  lair; 

And,  armed  with   deer  horn,  clad  in  girdled  hair, 

A  later   Savage   in   his   hollow   tree 

Hunts  the  strange  broods  of  a  primeval  sea." 


TRENTON,  N.  J. 
MacCrellish  &  Quigley,  Printers. 

1908. 


PREFACE. 


THE  discussion  has  been  as  animated  as  it  has  proved 
•  unsatisfactory,  that  reckonable  time,  if  I  may  so  call  it, 
enters  into  geological  problems  as  unquestionably  does 
sequence  of  events. 

When  we  pick  up  a  pebble  and  find  that  it  is  made  up  of 
minute  grains  of  sand  so  cemented  by  silica  that  it  is  again 
solid  rock,  we  are  carried  back  to  a  time  when  this  sand  was 
rock,  then  broken,  crushed  to  fragments,  almost  to  powder, 
each  grain  rounded  by  running  water,  then  exposed  to1  other 
influences  arid  a  new  rock  formed  of  the  fragments  of 
another,  a  piece  detached,  rolled  until  all  angularity  had 
disappeared  and  is  now  a  pebble.  Hold  such  a  one  in  your 
hand,  and  under  its  influence,  while  gazing  on  it,  travel 
back  to  those  ancient  days  when  first  one  and  then  another 
of  the  changes  occurred,  or  still  farther  back,  when  the 
elements  of  that  rock  were  yet  intangible,  and  then  apply 
your  petty  method  of  calculating  time  as  it  affects  humanity. 
The  absurdity  is  at  once  apparent. 

Time  applies  to1  human  history  only,  and  when  it  is  to  be 
applied  to  what  we  know  as  ancient  human  history,  the 
greatest  caution  is  called  for,  as  many  have  found  to<  their 
sorrow,  when  the  facts  of  the  earth  have  calmly  contradicted 
the  vagaries  of  dreamers.  Nature  has  never  recognized 
what  man  knows  as  "time."  Always  existent,  but  ever 
changing,  her  career  extends  backward  throughout  the 
eternity  of  the  past,  as  it  will  continue  throughout  the 
eternity  of  the  future.  Man's  career,  as  yet,  is  but  as  a 
fleeting  shadow  on  the  surface  of  the  sea,  and  only  an 


approximate  date  need  concern  the  archaeologist  who  en 
deavors  to  trace  this  career.  To  endeavor  to  date  it  as  we 
do  that  which  has  happened  within  recorded  human  history, 
to  speak  of  years,  centuries,  or  even  milleniums,  is  the  bane 
of  archaeological  research.  Only  the  most  indefinite  phrases, 
as  "old"  and  "very  old,"  should  be  used.  It  is  the  business 
only  of  the  archaeologist  to  trace  the  sequence  of  event,  to 
arrange  in  proper  order,  if  he  can,  the  sadly  mixed,  dis 
jointed  and  exasperatingly  confused  facts  and  fragments 
thereof,  and  set  them  forth  again  in  orderly  array.  This  is 
his  proper  work.  No  cherished  theory,  no  adherence  to 
long-settled  convictions  of  one's  days  of  ignorance  should 
deter  him  from  demonstrating,  when  opportunity  affords, 
that  this  is  older  than  that,  and  the  invention  of  a  simple 
form  preceded  the  elaboration  of  a  complex  one. 

Who,  standing  in  the  shadow  of  a  patriarchal  oak,  will 
attempt  to  count  its  leaves,  or  trace  the  outlines  of  its  tiniest 
twigs,  or  follow7  each  sinuosity  of  its  wrinkled  bark?  It  is 
the  tree  as  a  whole  that  bids  us  pause,  and  there  is  ever 
enough  to  excite  our  wonder  and  call  forth  our  admiration 
without  asking  the  question,  when  was  the  first  acorn 
evolved  from  some  Quercian  ancestor?  Enough  to  know 
there  are  oaks,  and  for  long  have  been;  enough  to  know 
there  are  men,  and  for  ages  long  have  been,  and,  as  a  fellow 
feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind,  at  times,  it  also  makes 
some  of  us  wondrous  curious  at  other  times ;  so,  to  inquire 
into'  the  career  of  those  who1  preceded  us  is  not  unnatural, 
nor,  perhaps,  without  some  use.  There  is  always  satisfac 
tion  in  the  possession  of  a  truth,  even  if  we  can  make  no 
special  use  of  it.  Certainly  we  never  know  when  a  truth 
may  come  into  play.  Man  is  an  incident  in  the  progress  of 
events,  and,  as  such,  is  of  some  interest;  but,  if  we  associate 
him  with  time  absolute  or  time  relative,  as  we  must  an 
individual  and  his  period  of  existence,  we  are  led  into  a 
trackless  wilderness,  from  which  there  is  no  escape. 


"Thus,  it  happened,"  is  a  happy  phrase,  but  how  much 
care  should  be  exercised  in  using  it,  and  then,  it  should  be 
always  understood  that  it  is  used  tentatively.  When 
Euripides  suggested  our  ignorance  of  to-morrow,  in  his  neat 
way  of  putting  it,  he  may  not  have  had  in  mind  either 
historian  or  archaeologist,  but  they,  above  all  people,  should 
keep  in  mind  that  the  earth  turned  up  to-morrow  may  tell  a 
different  story  from  that  which  was  brought  to  light  to-day. 
The  spade  is  something  more,  it  seems,  than  an  implement 
with  which  to  dig.  It  proves  to  be  a  maul  occasionally  that 
knocks  the  bottom  out  of  the  tub  into*  which  the  theorist  has 
snugly  ensconced  himself.  The  worst  of  it  is  these  petty 
Diogenetic  archaeologists  complain  bitterly  because  the  little 
ness  of  their  labors  has  not  been  sufficient,  and  their  solution 
of  a  problem  has  not  proved  the  genuine  solution  of  the 
great  problem. 

Applying  experiences  had  in  other  directions,  it  is 
naturally  unlikely  that  the  career  of  man  can  ever  be  traced 
without  here  and  there  a  yawning  and  unfathomable  abyss, 
where  may  be  everything  that  vexes  and  nothing  that  satis 
fies  ;  obstacles  too  high  to  clamber  over,  too  long  and  broad 
to  travel  around,  and  far  too  deep  to  tunnel  beneath  them. 
We  can  imagine  only  in  such  a  case,  and  the  sole  difficulty 
is  to  satisfy  ourselves  that  we  are  making  a  scientific  use  of 
the  imagination.  Then,  when  it  comes  to  making  a  state 
ment,  let  the  fact  upon  which  no  obscurity  casts  a  shadow 
be  set  forth  as  such,  and  our  inference  or  fruit  of  imagina 
tive  exercise  be  set  forth  as  such.  Then,  and  then  only,  will 
knowledge  be  advanced.  This  has  not  always  been  done. 
Some  problem,  into  which  the  element  of  time  enters,  is 
raised  upon  a  pedestal  and  so  revered  that  all  else  becomes 
of  secondary  importance,  and  facts  must  be  bent,  twisted 
and  contorted  generally  until  they  give  some  resemblance  to 
conformity  with  the  all-important  (?)  problem.  A  thou- 


sand  facts  are  often  thus  made  valueless  to  give  fictitious 
value  to  a  worthless  whim. 

Mention  need  scarcely  be  made  of  the  fact  that  it  can  only 
prove  disastrous  to  science  to  make  use  of  time  to  bolster  up 
some  vague  tradition  which  has  loomed  into  prominence 
because  reduced  to  writing  long  after  the  events  occurred, 
if,  in  fact,  they  ever  did.  It  is  well  enough  in  a  way  to 
approximately  date  the  time  when  the  moon,  for  instance, 
leaped  from  the  Pacific  and  started  on  a  still  more  pacific 
career  of  its  own.  Millions  of  years  ago!  So  be  it;  and  so 
Lord  Kelvin  can  compute  the  duration  of  life  on  this  planet, 
but  unfortunately  an  accurate  definition  of  "life"  is  not  yet 
forthcoming.  Do  crystals  live?  We  hear  much  of  the 
intelligence  of  plants.  Is  protoplasm  conscious?  All  such 
speculative  features  of  scientific  research  are  proper  enough 
and  indeed  are  unavoidable,  but  nothing  of  it  all  pertains  to< 
the  study  of  man's  career.  There  are  no  dates  in  the  earlier 
milleniums  of  his  struggle  for  existence,  and  why  the  Glacial 
Period,  innocent,  dreary  days  of  ice  and  snow,  should  be 
brought  down  to  so  late  a  time  that  we  can  almost  feel  its 
wintry  breath,  to  make  more  plausible  an  oriental  legend 
and  fragments  of  the  Orient's  history,  surpasses  compre 
hension. 

Certainly,  to:  those  now  facing  the  serious  problem  of 
living  their  own  lives  it  matters  nothing  \vhen  the  first 
anthropoid  strode  over  the  plain  or  through  the  forest,  not 
having  dominion  over  all  other  beasts,  himself  but  little  in 
advance  of  them,  but  striving  to  outwit  them  ail,  and  this 
effort  has  not  yet  ceased,  for  there  are  some  creatures  still 
that  may  be  "lower"  than  mankind  as  a  whole,  but  which 
have  a  wit  that  defies  man's  efforts  to  effect  their  annihila 
tion.  Nevertheless,  when  we  see  the  foot-prints  of  a 
previous  traveler,  we,  as  we  travel,  wonder  who  he  was  that 
passed  this  way.  So,  too,  when  some  trifle  that  fell  from 


human  hands  happens  in  our  path,  laudable  curiosity  is 
aroused,  and  the  past  is,  or  should  be,  in  a  measure  revealed. 
Whether  fantastically  or  not,  depends  upon  ourselves.  It 
is  the  business  of  the  archaeologist  to  see  that  our  re-creation 
of  a  time  gone  by  is  not  grotesque,  but  rational ;  that  step 
by  step  we  are  guided  by  fact,  not  fancy,  and,  above  all,  no 
vain  imaginings  of  the  uninstructed  of  centuries  ago  shall 
poison  us  with  their  fallacious  views  of  the  world  and  of 
themselves.  The  philosophy  of  other  continents  is  philo 
sophical  in  America  if  it  is  philosophy,  but  oriental  con 
cepts  of  the  origins  of  things  have  no  place  here.  The 
American  archaeologist  has  to  do  with  American  man.  His 
studies  in  the  museum  and  library,  and  his  labors  in  the 
field  may  never  solve  the  problem  of  the  American's  origin. 
The  secret  may  be  so  deeply  buried  no  spade  will  ever  reach 
it;  but  it  may  be  confidently  claimed,  the  secret,  if  ever 
brought  to  light,  will  be  discovered  here. 

Discovered  or  not,  man  here  in  America,  on  these  broad 
plains  and  in  these  boundless  forests,  had  a  career.  None 
will  question  this,  and  this  alone  concerns  us,  for,  as  we 
tread  it,  the  ground  is  firm  beneath  our  feet.  To  the  quaking 
bogs,  in  which  the  theorist  loves  to  flounder,  he  is  welcome. 

Again  I  would  call  attention  to  the  importance  of  right 
interpretation  when  an  object  of  archaeological  significance 
is  discovered.  The  spirit  of  the  collector  is  too  likely  to 
Control,  and  the  desire  of  acquisition  overrules  prudence, 
and  the  specimen  is  removed  without  thought  of  its  sur 
roundings  and  considered  only  per  se.  Too  often  this  means 
nothing.  As  well  cut  a  word  from  the  page  of  a  book  and 
study  it,  and  so  lose  all  that  the  page  might  have  revealed. 
Even  an  object  lying  on  the  surface  has  or  may  have  more 
significance  than  the  simple  fact  that  it  is  a  veritable  relic 
of  an  earlier  century,  but  it  is  when  brought  to  light  by  the 
spade  or  exposed  by  the  crumbling  of  the  face  of  a  cliff 


8 

that  the  really  important  study  of  the  object  should  com 
mence.  It  is  imperative  that  we  first  determine  the  nature, 
or  trace  the  history  of  the  containing  bed.  It  is  equally 
demanded  that  we  eliminate  all  possibility  of  the  "find" 
being  an  intrusive  object,  and  then  remove  it  and  hear  what 
it  has  to  say  for  itself.  There  should  be  a  responsive  chord 
betwixt  the  finder  and  the  found.  Let  nothing  that  is 
gathered  become  merely  a  specimen.  One  arrowhead  is  as 
good  as  ten  thousand  if  that  it  is  an  arrowhead  is  all  one 
cares  to  know.  If  the  trunk  of  a  patriarchal  oak  is  split  and 
an  arrowhead  is  found  near  the  heart  of  the  log,  then  it  can 
be  accepted  as  a  fact  that  the  object  struck  and  was  held 
fast  by  the  tree  when  the  latter  was  a  sapling,  and  the 
annual  rings  of  growth  gradually  shut  it  from  the  light  of 
day.  There  can  be  no  blundering  here,  no  unwarranted 
inference,  no  rash  conclusions  drawn.  Error  here  has  no 
ground  upon  which  to  stand  and  make  a  seductive  showing. 
It  is  very  much  the  same  with  traces  of  man  found  in  the 
earth.  Whether  intentionally  inhumed  or  hidden  by  natural 
forces,  cataclysmic  or  orderly,  can  be  determined  in  almost 
every  case.  If  naturally  shut  from  view,  then  the  character 
of  the  changes  of  the  surface  which  resulted  ultimately  in 
burying  the  relic  are  to  be  considered.  Such  study  calls 
for  the  consideration  of  the  element  of  time.  No  startling 
antiquity  can  be  attached,  it  may  be,  to  ninety  and  nine  of 
every  hundred  objects  that  are  found,  but  that  one  hundredth 
will  rise  to  puzzle,  if  not  vex,  its  discoverer,  and  the  care 
given  to  the  consideration  oi  the  others,  extended  to  it,  will 
result  in  its  not  fitting  with  any  theory  of  modern  origin. 
It  cannot  be  carried  forward  and  found  a  place  in  recent 
centuries,  but,  on  the  contrary,  carries  its  finder  irresistably 
back  to  so  remote  a  time  that  he  gropes  in  darkness  instead 
of  walking  in  the  light.  The  knot  that  we  seek  to  untie  can 
be  cut  by  asserting  it  to  be  an  intrusive  object,  but  here  in 


the  valley  of  the  Delaware  these  "intrusive"  objects  are  all, 
as  yet  found,  of  so  primitive  a  type  that  it  is  more  difficult 
to  understand  how  an  historic  Indian  could  use  them,  than 
that  they  were  the  handiwork  of  a  less  cultured  folk. 

The  moral  of  all  which  is  that  a  mere  collector  has  no 
place  in  the  field.  He  simply  renders  more  difficult  the  labor 
of  the  archaeologist.  One  stone  chip,  one  potsherd,  one 
fragment  of  bone,  artificially  shaped,  intelligently  removed 
from  where  it  has  rested  for  centuries  is  worth  a  dozen  cases 
in  any  amateur's  museum,  however  elaborately  labelled  and 
ostentatiously  displayed. 

Of  course,  all  difficulty  can  be  avoided  and  archaeology 
reduced  to  a  mere  preface  to  history  by  ignoring  objects 
possessing  transcendant  importance.  This  is  the  plan  fol 
lowed  by  certain  institutions,  and  the  inevitable  result  of  a 
wrong  impression  has  gone  abroad.  It  is  the  prevailing 
view  that  the  Americas  were  unknown  to  any  race  of 
man,  until  discovered  by  some  one  of  them  a  few  centuries 
ago.  This  simplifies  archaeology  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  becomes  the  plaything  of  the  unthinking  masses,  and 
the  public  is  permitted  to  reach  its  own  conclusions 
—never  a  safe  thing  to  do — providing  always  it  closes 
its  eyes  when  any  object  suggestive  of  a  lapse  of  cen 
turies  is  held  up  before  them.  If  palaeontology  were  treated 
in  such  a  manner,  what  would  we  know  now  of  the  succes 
sion  of  forms  in  the  various  geological  horizons,  from  the 
earliest  to  the  latest?  As  it  is,  American  palaeontology 
ranks  high  in  the  court  of  science,  and  deservedly  so;  while 
those  whose  advantages  in  archaeological  research  have  been 
greatest,  have  very  nearly  dragged  it  down  to  the  level  of  a 
farce. 

If  what  has  been  called  heretofore  archaeology,  is  not 
such  but  ancient  history  of  a  modern  type,  as  the  Bureau  of 


IO 

Ethnology  declares,  then  by  all  means  change  the  nomen 
clature  and  call  a  spade  a  spade.  At  least  make  a  show  of 
honesty,  even  if  none  exists. 

It  has  been  superciliously  claimed  recently  that  North 
American  archaeology  was  not  a  subject  of  scientific  research 
forty  odd  years  ago,  when  an  institution  for  such  research 
was  founded.  If  not  then,  it  is  no  more  so  now.  The  truth 
is  that  the  subject  was  not  scientifically  treated,  and  now, 
to  make  a  great  show  of  activity,  the  ends  of  the  earth  are 
swept  up  into  a  heap  and  the  dust  that  is  raised  obscures  the 
original  purpose  of  those  who  would  have  the  origin  and 
career  of  early  man  in  America  determined.  The  handi 
work  in  stone,  bone  and  clay  of  the  North  American  Indian 
is  asserted  to>  be  a  matter  "of  narrow  and  well-defined 
limit."  Narrow,  because  of  the  narrow  view  taken  of  it, 
o<r  spitefully  called  "narrow"  because  too  great  to  be 
grasped;  and  "well-defined,"  if  by  this  term  is  meant  what 
North  American  archaeology  really  comprehends,  but  not 
defined  in  detail  by  any  means,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
endless  array  of  specimens  duly  labelled  as  an  implement 
of  war,  agriculture  or  hunting.  Beyond  that,  a  pitiful  blank, 
that  becomes  the  more  so*  as  the  quantity  of  material  in 
creases.  "Narrow  and  well-defined,"  the  archaeology  of  the 
Atlantic  seaboard  may  be,  but  nowhere  is  the  whole  matter 
set  forth  in  detail.  The  purpose  of  first  importance  of 
archaeological  research  is  to  determine  the  beginning  of  an 
industry,  to  date  relatively  the  beginning  of  occupation  of  a 
given  territory.  This  may  all  be  within  the  "well-defined" 
limits  referred  to,  but  the  line  of  separation  twixt  archae 
ology  and  geology,  or  the  place  of  American  archaeology 
in  world-wide  anthropology  has  not  yet  been  brought  into 
the  realm  of  the  readily  discernible. 

The  relationship  of  North  America  to  other  portions  of 
the  globe  is  eminently  desirable  to  ascertain ;  without  it,  all 


II 

the  facts,  if  ascertainable,  of  one  region,  would  be  of  little 
value,  but  the  facts  of  all  other  regions  will  not  help  us  to 
bring  to  light  the  past  of  our  own  country.  When  a  relic  of 
stone,  bone  or  clay  can  be  picked  up  in  the  fields  and  its 
whole  story  told,  its  entire  significance  expounded  without 
hesitation  or  reservation,  it  will  be  found  that  the  subject 
of  North  American  archaeology,  as  a  whole,  is  not  so  very 
"narrow,"  and  the  definition  of  its  limits  be  found  such  that 
we  can  only  wonder  that  a  subject  so  full  of  interest  should 
have  been  so  long  neglected  and  even  treated  with  contempt 
and  ill-treated  through  crass  ignorance  as  it  has  been. 

Seeing  a  great  crowd,  we  get  but  a  poor  impression  of 
humanity;  so  too,  seeing  a  vast  accumulation  of  relics  does 
not  throw  light  on  their  origin.  One  grooved  stone  axe 
will  tell  the  story  of  them  all,  if  we  can  but  get  it  to  speak 
for  itself.  Why  a  groove  about  it,  instead  of  a  hole  through 
it,  as  we  find  them  in  Europe  ?  Have  those  who  look  with 
ill-disguised  impatience  at  the  pre-historic  objects  of  their 
own  surroundings,  told  us  this  simple  fact?  The  spirit  of 
accumulation  is  fatal  to  that  of  investigation.  Mounds  have 
been  levelled,  when  robbed  of  their  treasures,  but  the  builder 
of  the  mound  has  not  yet  figured  in  history  or  been  awarded 
a  paragraph  in  any  annual  report.  The  subject  may  be  too 
"narrow  and  well-defined"  to  need  this,  but  here  there  is 
difference  of  opinion.  There  are  those  who  want  to  know 
of  the  man  who  made  the  arrowhead  and  shaped  the  axe 
and  left  the  endless  potsherds  in  our  fields.  What  other 
countries  have  to  say  and  show  may  not  appeal  to  us. 
Nothing  distinctly  beyond  their  boundaries  can  solve  the 
problem  o>f  the  Atlantic  seaboard  States,  and  these  are  by 
no  means  one  in  their  ancient  history.  There  is  room  to 
wander  without  danger  of  collision  in  these  "narrow  and 
well-defined  limits,"  and  enough  to  be  discovered  to  keep 
the  honest  student  busy  all  his  life ;  nor  is  it  likely  that  the 


12 

tale  when  told  will  prove  without  interest,  without  stirring 
incident,  without  those  features  of  mankinds'  later  history 
which  are  ever  as  prominent  as  they  are  proof  of  a  lowly 
origin. 

That  forty  odd  years  of  familiarity  with  stone  imple 
ments  could  lead  only  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  not 
objects  of  scientific  research,  and  rouse  but  an  idle  interest 
that  is  "narrow"  and  a  significance  that  is  "well-defined,"  is 
a  trifle  discouraging  perhaps,  but  we  must  consider  that  it 
is  a  museum-born  conclusion  and  had  the  significance  of 
the  fields  gone  with  the  object,  another  story  might  now  be 
told. 

A  check  to  the  progress  that  might  have  been  made  years 
ago  in  reaching  to  a  reasonably  comprehensive  conclusion 
is  the  constantly  occurring  contradictions  that  face  the 
explorer.  Nothing  disturbs  the  theorists  in  his  study,  still 
less  is  the  curator  perturbed  when  arranging  his  specimens; 
all,  in  either  case,  is  what  he  wishes  it  to  be ;  but  the  spade 
has  no  consideration  for  the  man  who  uses  it.  It  brings  to 
light  whatever  is  in  the  ground,  and  not  simply  what, 
according  to  theorists  ought  to  be  there.  No  one  is  so 
severely  and  so  frequently  jolted  as  the  archaeologist  when 
in  the  field.  He  cannot  withstand  the  temptation  to  formu 
late  his  facts  as  he  acquires  them.  They  must  be  set  in 
orderly  array  that  they  may  not  disturb  the  mind  while  the 
hands  are  busy ;  but  how  often,  when  the  sky  is  clearest  and 
the  outlook  fair,  suddenly  the  cloud  of  a  contradiction 
sweeps  over  sky  and  plain  and  the  mists  of  doubt  envelops 
them.  This  is  not  so  unhappy  an  occurrence  as  the  reader 
might  think.  It  only  demonstrates  the  danger  of  theorizing 
on  insufficient  data.  Sum  up  the  day's  work  only  at  the 
close  of  the  day;  sum  up  the  year's  work  only  at  the  close 
of  the  year,  and  finally,  sum  up  the  life's  work  at  the  end  of 


13 

a  life.  There  will  be  fewer  mistakes  made  and  the  little 
that  is  left  behind,  when  the  archaeologist  passes  away,  will 
be  worth  the  having. 

There  is  another  view  to  be  taken  of  contradictions,  as 
we  meet  with  them  in  the  field.  They  are  a  constant  caution 
against  too  limited  a  view.  Your  own  field  and  your  neigh 
bor's  may  tell  different  stories.  No  one  house  in  a  city  tells 
how  all  the  citizens  live.  So  no  two  limited  localities  will 
prove  the  same,  on  exploration.  The  counterpart  of  some 
one  day's  experience  may  never  happen.  Unique  conditions 
are  the  rule,  thousands  of  acres  considered,  and  so  there  are 
many  unique  objects,  outcomes  each  of  a  passing  thought 
that  was  never  repeated.  But  through  them  all  there  is  a 
common  significance;  however  varying,  there  is  a  common 
origin.  Just  as  two  individuals,  to-day,  would  surely,  if 
they  could  trace  the  matter  far  enough  back,  find  a  common 
ancestor,  so  it  is  in  the  study  of  a  people  once  occupying 
any  clearly  defined  territory.  The  thing  in  common  is  the 
proper  quest  of  the  archaeologist.  The  special  is  always  for 
subsequent  consideration.  The  former,  when  once  upon  the 
right  track,  can  be  traced  with  some  degree  of  certainty. 
The  contradictions  should  not  deter  us  in  proceeding  or  be 
allowed  to  chill  that  enthusiasm,  without  which,  effort  is 
vain.  Often  these  same  contradictions,  as  we  hold  them, 
are  only  facts  out  of  place,  and  will  fill  again  their  proper 
niches  when  we  have  reached  far  enough  back  to  realize 
what  the  past  has  been.  We  know  better  what  the  depth  of 
a  well  means  when  we  stand  at  the  bottom  of  it  and  look 
upward. 

No  one  has  as  yet  reached  the  beginnings  of  human 
activity  on  this  continent,  nor  will  it  ever  be  reached  except 
by  digging  for  it,  and  not  idly  speculating  as  to  the  ultimate 
result  of  the  effort.  As  yet,  only  a  small  area  has  been 
passed  through  a  sieve  and  the  treasure  it  contained  sep 
arated,  and  until  this  has  been  done  a  hundred  fold  more 


14 

than  at  present,  will  it  be  warranted  to  speak,  even  if  then, 
in  absolute  confidence  and  defy  criticism.  While  the 
questions  involved  are  still  in  a  tentative  shape,  this  is  no 
reason  why  the  convictions  of  the  individual,  at  the  close 
of  his  life's  work,  should  not  be  set  forth  and  defended 
until  further  exploraiiun  sets  his  conclusions  permanently 
aside. 

The  morning"  is  still  fresh;  no  one  has  borne  the  heat 
and  burden  of  the  day.  Work,  not  words,  is  the  order  of 
the  hour,  and  this  is  preeminetly  true  here  in  the  valley  of 
the  Delaware,  where  every  chip  of  stone  is  an  ancient's 
autograph  and  every  finished  implement  his  autobiography. 

Whether  or  not  a  wiser  procedure  to  have  remained 
silent  after  thirty-six  years  of  labor  in  the  field,  is  not  now 
to  be  considered.  Thirty-six  years  ago  I  invited  criticism 
by  unqualified  statements  o<f  views  which  have  as  yet  stood, 
although  they  may  not  always  stand,  the  test  of  time.  As 
years  rolled  by,  I  was  not  inclined  to  alter  any  material 
view,  and  made  but  few  changes  in  subsequent  statements 
as  to  minor  matters. 

Palaeolithic  man  may  never  have  existed,  the  later  argil- 
lite  man  may  be  a  figment  of  a  too  active  imagination,  and 
all  traces  of  early  man  reduced  to  a  recent  date,  when,  as  Mr. 
Mercer  presumes,  the  Delaware  valley  broke  out  suddenly 
with  humanity,  like  a  child  with  the  measles,  but  still  I  do 
not  believe  it. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  proper  here  to  express  my  many  obli 
gations  to  M.  Taylor  Pyne,  Esq.,  of  Princeton,  N.  J.,  whose 
unflagging  interest  in  my  work  and  substantial  encourage 
ment  at  all  times,  made:  it  possible  to-  carry  on  my  investi 
gations  until  now,  when  I  cheerfully  pass  on  the  problem 
of  man's  origin  in  the  Delaware  Valley  to  younger  and 
more  competent  hands. 
THREE  BEECHES,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  October  I3th,  1908.  C.  C.  A. 


ARCH^EOLOGIA 

NOVA 
O33SAREA 


II. 

THE   PEOPLING  OF   NORTH   AMERICA. 

THE  PEOPLING  of  North  America  is  as  yet  an  unsolved 
problem.  There  is  a  theory  for  every  day  in  the  year 
and  every  change  of  the  wind,  but  there  has  been  no  dem 
onstration.  The  most  plausible  is  the  possibility  of  drifting 
from  Japan  or  that  general  locality  eastward  to'  the  Aleutian 
Islands.  A  word  here  as  to  this.  If  it  did  ever  happen, 
then  it  was  so  very  long  ago,  that  the  few  slight  resem 
blances  of  a  physical  character  were  the  principle  character 
istics  of  both  peoples,  and  since  then  the  two  races  have 
been  built  up  on  very  divergent  lines.  All  this  calls  for  an 
antiquity  which  refers  the  whole  subject  to  the  scope  of 
geological  rather  than  ethnological  research. 

What  relation  the  circumpolar  people  have  to>  the  North 
American  Indian  is  still  a  puzzle.  The  results  of  explo 
ration  and  thoroughly  scientific  investigation  lead  rather 
to  inference  than  conviction,  and  it  is  the  history,  as  we 
know  it,  of  the  so-called  Eskimo  that  calls  for  a  lapse  of 
time  that  is  not  readily  computed.  The  earliest  people  left 
no  unmistakable  track  behind  them  in  their  march.  How 
do  we  know,  to-day,  that  bears,  wolves  and  wild-cats  were 
once  abundant  in  our  back  yards,  and  that  where  we  have 
plotted  a  garden  path  may  have  been  in  other  days  an 
Indian  trail  ?  It  is  a  matter  of  hearsay,  of  vague  tradition, 
of  fragmentary  history  originally  written  by  incompetent 
historians.  The  evidences,  substantial,  indisputable  and 
overwhelming  have,  long  before  this,  effectually  disap 
peared.  Still,  we  do  have  what  we  call  positive  knowledge, 
in  the  records  of  the  days  when  European  and  American 
came  in  contact,  but  no  such  conditions  obtain  in  the  pre- 
2  17 


i8 

ceding-  chapter  of  the  Earth  record.  The  native  American 
did  not  chronicle  his  career  nor  place  beyond  irrecoverable 
loss,  his  origin.  All  traces  of  early  man  are  accidental,  and 
it  follows,  consequently,  that  all  efforts  to  make  plain  the 
significance  of  such  traces  are  equally  uncertain.  \Ye  may 
be  right,  the  truth  may  be  set  forth,  but  the  element  of  un 
certainty  hangs  over  it  all  as  the  mists  of  dawn  obscure  the 
rising  sun. 

While  it  is  painfully  like  groping  in  the  dark,  the  condi 
tions  among  the  Indians  in  1620-1680.  earlier  and  later. 
were  undoubtedly  such  that  a  long  time  must  have  elapsed 
to  have  brought  them  about.  Progress  is  very  slow  among 
savage  peoples.  There  is  almost  no  incentive  to  change. 
The  influences  that  effect  a  people  are  due  to  physical  con 
ditions  altering.  In  such  case,  the  required  amount  of  adap 
tation  takes  place.  Such  changes  of  the  earth's  surface,  of 
the  climate,  of  fauna  and  flora  are  never  sudden,  but  when 
they  do  occur  they  exert  an  influence  no  people  can  with 
stand.  All  this  has  happened,  but  not  a  measurable  part  of 
it  is  a  matter  of  yesterday.  It  is  reasonable  to  infer  that 
far  less  seldom  than  now  did  a  prophet  arise  among  them 
and  lead  the  way  towards  better  conditions,  if  not  a  better 
land.  Such  unwelcome  disturbances  belong,  as  of  old.  to 
the  semi-civilized  of  a  barren  country,  where  day-dreaming 
is  the  most  strenuous  occupation,  or  among  ourselves,  so 
over-burdened  with  civilization,  the  working  of  the  ma 
chinery  is  irregular  and  the  inevitable  happens.  The  prophet 
has  degenerated  to  a  freak,  yet  it  has  no  less  a  following. 

The  North  American  Continent  has  always  called  for 
sane  methods  of  living.  Effort  has  been  the  price  of  suc 
cess.  The  Indian  found  it  so  at  the  outset,  and  was  finding 
it  so  when  in  1492  a  change  came  o'er  the  spirit  of  his 
dream.  Canassatego  was  doubtless  right  when  he  claimed 
the  Indians  were  better  off  before  the  arrival  of  the  Euro- 


19 

peans  than  ever  afterwards.  They  had  fitted  themselves 
into  a  niche  and  were  living  as  they  wished,  and  under  such 
circumstances  all  change  was  necessarily,  must  necessarily 
have  been,  slow.  A  century  has  less  an  effect  upon  them 
than  does  a  decade  upon  our  unfortunate  selves. 

The  most  interesting  phase  of  this  question,  the  peopling 
of  America,  is  that  which  associates  man  with  the  masto 
don  and  elephant.  This  subject  comes  well  within  the  scope 
of  the  archaeology  of  Xew  Jersey,  because  these  huge 
proboscideans  were  once  abundant  here,  as  gravel  beds, 
swamps  and  peat-bogs  attest. 

Cleverly  as  the  geological  history  of  the  Xorth  Ameri 
can  Continent  has  been  worked  out,  and  accurate  as  is  our 
knowledge  of  its  secondary  and  tertiary  faunas,  it  is  still  evi 
dent  that  our  knowledge,  while  accurate  as  far  as  it  extends, 
is  not  complete.  Curiously  enough,  the  nearer  we  get  to 
our  own  time,  the  less  assured  are  wye  of  our  facts.  No 
mystery  surrounds  the  oyster  in  the  cretaceous  marls,  but 
nothing  but  mystery  envelops  the  scattered  bones  in  even 
recent  gravels. 

When  an  extensive  earth-work  is  well  nigh  obliterated 
by  a  flood,  what  remains  enables  us  to  trace  the  outlines  of 
the  original  structure.  We  can  do  as  much  by  means  of  the 
vexatiously  scanty  traces  of  certain  forms  of  life  of  a  geologi 
cal  epoch.  One  tooth  of  an  elephant  is  as  substantial  evidence 
of  the  beast's  one  time  existence  as  the  skeletons  of  a  thou 
sand  of  these  ponderous  creatures,  and  \vith  such  a  starting 
point,  the  life  of  the  individual  and  the  habits  of  a  herd 
thereof,  can  so  far  be  depicted  to  the  mind's  eye  that  the 
student  has  even*  reason  to  be  satisfied.  To  go  to  Africa 
and  deliberately  murder  one  would  not  teach  him  more. 
But  it  should  be  remembered  that  he  has  started  from  the 
time  of  the  established  career  of  the  animal  in  this  country, 


20 

and  is  not  walking  on  as  firm  ground  when  he  ventures 
backward  and  hopes  to  determine  when  that  career  com 
menced.  If  every  mammal  whose  remains  have  been  found 
in  North  America  could  be  shown  to  have  been  evolved  on 
American  soil,  the  difficulties  would  all  vanish.  The  Ameri 
can  man  could,  if  he  would,  look  kindly  upon  the  American 
monkey,  which  still  holds  its  own  in  our  tropical  jungles. 
Palaeontological  research,  however,  certainly  warrants  noth 
ing  of  the  kind.  We  must  look  elsewhere  for  American 
man's  origin,  and  elsewhere,  too,  for  the  mastodon  and  ele 
phant.  Both  beasts  wandered  up  and  down  the  Delaware 
valley.  A  tooth,  a  tusk,  or  some  fragment  of  a  bone  tells 
the  whole  story. 

Where  the  traces  of  these  beasts  occur  is  of  great  signifi 
cance.  They  do  not  belong  to  the  surface  as  do  skeletons  of 
Indians  and  Colonial  coins.  We  do  not  pick  them  up  in 
ploughed  fields,  as  we  do  the  bones  of  bears,  deer,  beaver, 
and  even  the  wapiti ;  but,  when  the  present  surface  soil  is 
removed,  and  when  the  underlying  stratum  of  compact  sand 
is  penetrated,  we  find  in  the  coarser  gravels  that  were 
deposited  here  by  glacial  floods  these  proboscidean  remains. 
They  are  a  constituent  part  of  the  gravel.  They  have  much 
the  same  surface  as  the  associated  pebbles.  They  have 
been  subjected  to  the  same  conditions,  yet  many  of  them  are 
not  as  old.  The  ordeal  that  reduced  fragments  of  rock  to 
rounded  pebbles  would  have  reduced  them  to  powder,  or, 
at  least,  have  destroyed  all  resemblance  to*  their  original 
outline.  They  date  from  a  time  when  the  associated  pebbles, 
as  such,  were  transported  to1  their  present  position  by  the 
ancient  floods.  Huge  carcasses  floated  in  the  relentless  cur 
rent  of  the  stream,  were  stranded  at  last,  and  finally  the 
bones  were  scattered,  and  now,  at  this  distant  day,  a  frag 
ment  occasionally  comes  to  light.  We  are  never  so  much 
impressed  with  this  fact  as  when  we  recall  how  very  scanty 


21 

are  the  traces  of  these  animals.  Great  herds  were  once  here, 
and  their  teeth  and  bones  are  not  so  readily  decayed  that 
time  sufficient  has  elapsed  to  destroy  them.  The  majority 
of  such  elephants  and  mastodons  as  were  trapped  by  the 
floods  were  in  all  probability  carried  out  to  sea.  The  land 
that  was  once  within  our  coastline,  and  now  far  beyond  it, 
may  be  the  resting  place  of  these  animals,  just  as  now  the 
Siberian  marshes  are  a  proboscidean  cemetery.  All  this  is 
conjectural,  but  the  fact  remains,  unaffected  by  any  theory, 
there  were  elephants  and  mastodons  in  pre-glacial,  inter- 
glacial,  and  at  least  in  the  earliest  of  what  we  may  call  post 
glacial  days.  We  have  nothing  to  positively  demonstrate 
that  the  Indian  or  his  quite  remote  ancestors  had  any 
knowledge  of  such  a  creature. 

Here,  in  the  valley  of  the  Delaware,  with  which  I  am 
alone  concerned,  the  occurrence  of  a  trace  of  these  animals 
is,  I  think  I  may  say,  always  in  the  gravel,  and  just  as  the 
rude  chipped  implement  that  we  call  palaeolithic  sometimes 
occurs  there.  Nowhere  have  been  found  any  traces  of  the 
later  Indian  in  the  gravel  as  a  constituent  part  thereof,  nor 
any  trace  of  the  mastodon  or  elephant  with  remains  of  the 
native  race  that  last  occupied  the  region.  The  two-  are 
wholly  separate  and  apart.  Confusion  has  arisen  by  speak 
ing  of  the  association  of  man  and  the  mastodon,  and  the 
inference  being  drawn  that  to  the  historic  Indian  reference 
was  made.  If  these  people,  such  as  we  know  they  were 
when  Columbus  discovered  America,  had  been  familiar  with 
the  animal  in  question,  the  remains  oi  the  latter  should  be 
still  as  much  in  evidence  as  are  those  of  the  men  who  sup 
posedly  hunted  them.  This  is  true  of  the  elk,  bear  and  deer 
and  smaller  mammals,  the  Indians'  mainstay  for  food,  so 
why  not  the  more  resisting  bones  of  the  larger  creatures? 
We  know  that  the  mastodon  and  mammoth  preceded  man ; 
we  do  not  know  that  they  survived  until  the  "Indian"  was 


22 

this  country's  established  type  of  man.  The  over-wrought 
and  unquestionably  fraudulent  "Lenape"  stone  would  seem 
to<  tell  another  story,  but  this  encyclopedic  slab  of  slate, 
etched  by  a  left-handed  scamp,  refutes  its  own  claim.  There 
might  be  no  other  etched  gorget  like  it,  but  this  is  improbable, 
and  more  so<,  if  these  animals  could  be  depicted  so  vividly  in 
that  manner,  in  other  ways  it  would  have  been  at  least 
hinted  at,  when  we  find  that  stone  carving  and  pebble 
shaping  were  so  commonly  practiced.  The  Lenape  stone 
really  does  not  deserve  reference  made  to*  it,  nor  would  it 
receive  attention  had  not  misguided  and  jejune  enthusiasm 
been  so  persistent  in  keeping  in  evidence  a  palpable  fraud 
that  should  have  been  purchased  and  destroyed  instead  of 
preserved  and  published. 

As  stated,  the  association  of  man  and  elephantine  remains 
is  another  problem ;  that  is,  it  is  another  problem  if  cer 
tain  rudely  chipped  stones  found  also'  in  the  gravel  are  not 
of  Indian,  but  of  human  origin.  This  still  mooted  point 
draws  nearer  to<  a  definite  settlement  as  investigation  pro 
ceeds.  The  constantly  accumulating  evidence,  as  1  view 
the  matter,  tends  to  separate,  and  not  associate  the  two. 

I  have  already  (Archseologia  Nova  Csesarea,  No.  I,  p.  4,) 
called  attention  to  Mr.  Holmes'  statement  to  effect  that 
chipped  stones  were  abundant  at  the  foot  of  the  bluff  facing 
the  river — he  wrote  this  in  1893 — and  claimed  they  were 
practically  where  the  Indians  left  them,  having  tossed  them 
aside  as  refractory,  and  gives  them  the  name  "rejects."  The 
question  arises,  would  Mr.  Holmes  have  made  quite  the 
same  report  had  he  visited  the  spot  a  century  earlier,  when 
the  shore  line  was  at  least  fifty  feet  river-ward  or  westward 
of  the  present  bluff.  As  the  outline  sketch  shows,  where 
now  is  nothing  but  the  open  air,  there  were  storehouses  and 
wharves  back  of  them.  Necessarily,  no'  wild  Indian  i.  e., 


NW.\ 


\ 


Dotted  line,  bluff  in  1800. 

Continuous  line,  bluff  in  1908. 

Dotted  squares,  store  houses  prior  to  1850. 


24 

pre-colonial,  ever  saw  the  present  bluff  or  Jersey  shore  of 
the  river  as  it  now  is.  What  then  of  Mr.  Holmes'  abundant 
"rejects"  on  the  present  bluff  or  at  the  foot  of  it?  These 
must  either  have  fallen  from  the  top,  or  from  the  crumbling 
face  of  the  bluff,  or  been  carried  down  stream  by  freshets. 
All  the  evidence  favors  their  coming  from  the  gravel  that 
constitutes  the  bank  of  the  stream  at  this  point.  These 
specimens  may  have  been  discarded  by  ancient  man,  but  the 
only  "reject"  in  the  whole  question  is  Mr.  Holmes'  visionary 
account  of  the  conditions  here  and  their  archaeological 
significance. 

It  was  not  so  long  ago,  that  while  looking  for  palaeolithic 
implements  or  other  traces  of  ancient  man,  a  friend  picked 
from  the  compact  gravel  of  the  face  of  the  bluff,  that  there 
constituted  the  river's  bank,  and  at  a  significant  depth,  a 
tooth  of  a  mastodon,1  and  back  from  the  bluff,  from  the 
bottom  of  a  grave  then  being  dug,  an  argillite  implement 
was  thrown  to  the  surface.  The  horizon  was  essentially 
the  same.  The  gravel  was  the  one  deposit.  Shall  we  say 
that  the  chipped  argillite  was  an  intrusive  object  and  the 
tooth  in  place,  and  so  stifle  all  inquiry,  or  shall  we  look  the 
simple  fact  in  the  face,  accept  its  purport,  and  admit  the  con 
temporaneity  of  the  man  and  the  mastodon.  I  propose  to>  do 
so.  It  is  a  logical  conclusion.  It  violates  no>  canon  of 
geological  law.  It  may  run  counter  to'  pre-conceived 
opinion.  Facts  are  apt  to  do<  so  in  proportion  to  their 
importance,  but  this  unhappy  condition  should  not  act  as  a 
deterrent. 


*It  may  be  claimed  that  proboscidean  teeth  were  already  fossils  when 
they  became  a  constituent  part  of  the  mass  we  call  a  gravel  deposit, 
that  they  are  ivory  pebbles,  as  we  have  others  of  quartz,  sandstone, 
slate  and  hornblende — gneiss.  This  is  not  true,  however,  as  the  speci 
mens  have  not  undergone  any  degree  of  petrifaction,  but  only  suffered 
a  greater  or  less  degree  of  disintegration.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
can  be  looked  upon  in  no  sense  as  intrusive  objects.  The  condition  of 
the  containing  bed  forbids  this  supposition. 


25 

The  mastodon  and  elephant  are  not  indigenous.  They 
wandered  into  America  from  another  continent,  and  the 
land  communication  between  the  one  land  and  the  other 
must  have  been  a  substantial  area  of  firm  earth  and  vigor 
ous  vegetation.  Just  when  did  all  this  happen?  The  re 
searches  of  Prof.  Osborne  seem  to  indicate  that  Africa 
was  the  original  home  of  the  elephant,  and  that  it  found  its 
way  to  America — and  necessarily  to  North  America  first — 
thus  showing  it  to  be  "the  greatest  pre-historic  traveler 
among  all  the  animals  of  the  earth." 

Prof.  Osborne' s  own  view  of  the  association  of  man  and 
elephant  is,  or  was  in  1906,  as  follows: 

"It  is  difficult  to  give  anything  like  an  adequate  estimate 
of  the  period  during  which  man  has  been  on  the  American 
continent.  Personally,  I  am  inclined  to  the  view  that  man 
has  been  in  America  much  longer  than  is  generally  esti 
mated,  and  that  we  may  at  any  moment  discover  proofs. 

********* 

"Unfortunately,  our  pleistocene  deposits  in  this  country 
are  not  so  definitely  laid  down  nor  so  easy  to  determine 
from,  fossils  as  those  of  Europe.  Just  before  the  ice  age 
we  have  the  well-defined  sands  of  the  so-called  equus, 
or  horse  beds,  in  which  the  remains  of  camels,  horses  and 
elephants  occur.  This  is  roughly  estimated  at  from  two 
hundred  to  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  years  back,  and 
some  maintain  that  traces  of  man  have  been  found  even  in 
this  remote  period,  but  the  evidence  is  conflicting  and  by 
no  means  generally  accepted. 
********* 

"The  beginning  of  the  pleistocene  period  was  the  close 
of  what  may  be  termed  the  African  stage  in  the  history 
of  North  American  fauna — that  is,  elephants  undoubtedly 
African  in  origin,  were  present  in  abundance ;  also  horses, 


26 

either  of  African  or  of  Asiatic  origin;  camels  and  llamas 
mingled  with  a  few  distinctively  North  American  forms, 
such  as  the  large  kinds  of  peccaries,  but  with  practically 
very  little  of  the  North  European  fauna. 

"It  would  seem  not  impossible  nor  improbable  that  man, 
well  known  in  Europe  as  a  hunter  of  the  mammoth,  may 
have  found  his  way  to>  North  America  in  pursuit  of  these 
animals.  At  least,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  advent 
of  man  at  a  very  early  period.  There  were  no  physical 
barriers,  such  as  extremely  cold  temperature,  nor  were 
there  the  present  wide  Behring  Straits  to  be  traversed.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  existence  of  man 
in  Europe  has  not  been  proved  at  this  early  pleistocene 
period,  and  Europe  was  still  more  intensely  African  in 
the  character  of  its  fauna,  owing  to  its  greater  proximity 
to  Africa.  For  example,  the  peculiarly  African  hippo 
potami  were  present  in  the  rivers  of  Europe." 

Did  man,  at  a  later  date,  cross  these  "former  land 
bridges,"  yet  at  a  date  so  early  that  the  American  pro 
boscideans  still  roamed  the  country?  To  derive  American 
man  from  an  African  source  may  be  rather  startling,  but 
when  we  recall  the  fact  of  there  being  an  element  in  com 
mon  between  Eskimo  and  Bushman  art  that  goes  far  to 
indicate  a  common  origin,1  we  realize  how  wide  is  the 
prospect  over  which  the  imagination  is  required  scientifically 
to  roam,  if  all  the  facts  bearing  upon  early  man  in  Amer 
ica  are  desired,  and  without  all  of  them,  but  little  can  be 
done.  A  sturdy  structure  requires  stout  material.  The 
temple  of  American  archaeology  has  not  yet  been  built,  but 
its  outlines  are  fairly  well  defined,  and  the  solid  base  upon 
which  it  rises  is  the  rude  implement  of  the  rude  man 
which  had  wandered  over  all  the  northern  hemisphere 


Comparative  Art.    E.  S.  Balch,  Philad.  1906,  p.  84. 


27 

when  a  different  climate  and  a  different  fauna  were  its 
most  prominent  features. 

Let  us  follow  this  a  little  farther.  There  is  evidence 
sufficient  for  all  reasonable  demands  that  the  circum-polar 
people  have  been  longer  on  the  North  American  continent 
than  has  the  historic  Indian,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
latter  are  a  modification  of  the  former,  having  undergone 
such  changes  as  a  milder  climate  would  produce.  That  the 
arctic  man  or  Eskimo  dates  back  to  pre-glaeial  time  is  a 
logical  inference.  There  is  also  evidence,  as  I  have  per 
sistently  claimed,  although  it  is  vigorously  disputed,  that 
the  man  of  the  Delaware  valley  who  depended  wholly  upon 
argillite  for  implement-making  was  more  akin  in  mode  of 
life,  at  least,  if  not  genetically,  to  the  Eskimo'  o>f  the  pres 
ent  than  to  his  successor,  the  pottery-making,  flint-chipping 
Indian.  May  not,  then,  the  traces  of  man,  so>  separable 
from  the  surface-found  Indian  relics,  be  as  old  as  the  older 
strata  of  sand  and  gravel  and  contemporaneous  with  the 
elephant  and  mastodon?  This  line  of  reasoning  may  not 
satisfy  the  cautious  reader;  mine  may  be,  he  holds,  specious 
arguments  that  will  be  shown  in  their  true  light  sooner  or 
later,  but  it  is  with  unbounded  confidence  that  I  claim 
these  suggestions  to  be  better  fitted  to  our  few  unquestioned 
facts  than  to  refer  everything  we  find,  deep'  in  the  ground 
or  on  the  surface,  to*  the  Indian.  To>  do  this,  leaves  us 
still  in  the  dark.  It  has  not  yet  been  demonstrated  what 
the  term.  "Indian"  really  implies. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  the  Eskimo  went  from  what  we 
consider  a  much  more  desirable  country  and  deliberately 
chose  the  polar  regions,  with  its  walrus,  musk  ox  and  polar 
bear,  for  the  bison,  elk,  black  bear  and  deer,  which  were  ever 
more  abundant  and  more  easily  obtained.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  these  people  were  at  one  time  far  south  of  their  present 
range,  and  driven  northward,  then  this  happened  a  very  long 


28 

time  ago.  They  must  necessarily  have  preceded  the  en 
croaching  and  -attacking  people,  and  whence  came  the  latter  ? 
A  roving  band  would  never  have  successfully  contended 
with  a  settled  people.  It  was  a  question  o<f  numbers  against 
numbers,  and  the  conditions  of  population  must  have  come 
gradually  about.  This  calls  for  centuries.  It  is  a  matter 
of  "time  relative"  and  not  "time  absolute."  It  means  a 
condition  very  slowly  effected  over  a  continent.  The  dis 
position  toi  minimize  the  age  of  every  trace  discovered  is  not 
due  to  scientific  acumen  but  limitation  of  archaeological 
insight.  When  Mr.  Holmes  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethmology 
asserts :  "I  find  no  satisfactory  proof  of  the  existence  of 
man  in  America  beyond  a  few  thousand  years.  He  may 
have  occupied  some  parts  of  the  continent  at  the  close  of  the 
glacial  period,  which,  in  our  Northern  States,  was  probably 
some  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  years  ago,  but  the  proofs  are 
not  yet  conclusive."  He  should  have  added,  no  proofs  that 
will  ever  satisfy  him,  because  of  pre-conceived  notions  of 
modernity.  He  is  consistent  only  in  his  attitude  towards 
reasonable  demonstration  and  logical  inference.  When  he 
adds :  "The  manifest  age  of  the  kitchen  middens  along  our 
coasts,  and  the  magnitude  of  certain  ruined  cities  in  Mexico, 
Central  America  and  Peru  suggest  a  considerable  antiq 
uity — a  thousand  years  or  more — the  highest  estimate  sup 
ported  by  scientific  observations  being  three  thousand  years," 
he  simply  offeres  a  gratuitous  assumption  without  a  scintilla 
o>f  warrant,  at  least  so*  far  as  our  coast-wise  shell  heaps  are 
concerned.  Since  their  foundations  were  laid,  their  has  been 
up-lifting  and  sinking  of  the  clay  upon  which  they  rest  and 
to  limit  this  to  one  thousand  years  is  as  idle  as  the  prattle  of 
a  child  at  play.  It  is  such  "official"  announcements  to  an 
ignorant  public  that  so<  seriously  obstructs  the  progress  of 
scientific  research  and  of  truth. 

As  if  to  mitigate  the  mischief  of  previous  assertions,  it  is 
grudgingly  admitted  "one  of  the  most  satisfactory  proofs  of 


29 

considerable  age  is  the  highly  specialized  character  of  the 
race  as  such  and  of  its  languages  and  arts."  Here  we  have 
the  whole  matter  in  a  nutshell,  but  it  is  not  an  original 
assertion.  The  question  of  so*  many  years  or  so  many  cen 
turies  is  as  foreign  to  the  subject  as  is  Slheol  from  Paradise. 
What  the  archaeologist  wishes  to  know,  has  there  or  has 
there  not  been  an  unfolding  of  the  faculties  on  this  contin- 
tinent?  Was  ancient  man  as  wise  when  he  reached  it  a& 
when  he  left  it,  or  did  he  sojourn  here  long  enough  to 
become  familiar  with  all  its  forests  and  prairies,  its  oceans 
on  either  side  and  the  great  gulf  in  the  south?  Had  he 
learned  the  habits  of  the  beasts  of  the  forest  and  the  birds  of 
the  air;  had  he  coined  a  name  for  each  o-f  them?  Had  ideas 
become  directive  and  ceased  to  be  confusing  as  to  Nature 
and  her  \vorkings?  And  beyond  all  were  the  men  who 
signed  the  treaty  under  the  outreaching  arms  of  the  elm  at 
Shackamaxon  descendants  of  America's  first  human  occu 
pants  or  of  a  later  people,  which  supplanted  them  ?  My  own 
convictions,  based  upon  my  own  researches,  here,  in  this 
modest  valley  of  an  unpretentious  river,  is  that  all  this  did 
occur,  and  that  it  indicates,  not  what  Mr.  Holmes  most  un 
willingly  admits  as  "proofs  of  considerable  age,"  but  estab 
lishes  the  occurrence  of  epochs  in  the  occupancy  of  No-rth 
America  by  man. 

Nature  may  send  a  tidal  wave  over  some  level  expanse  and 
sweep  away  all  that  she  had  done  for  years  to  beautify  and, 
as  man  might  think,  establish  it ;  she  may  rouse  the  sleeping 
energies  at  the  base  of  a  volcano  and  devastate  all  the 
region  about  it.  Islands  of  the  sea,  may  appear  and  dis 
appear  while  man  stands  a  witness  of  her  mighty  efforts, 
but  nevertheless,  Nature  is  never,  the  world  over,  in  haste 
and  her  grand  totals  are  the  summing  up  of  activities  of 
such  modest  character  that  like  the  hour  hand  of  a  clock,  we 
cannot  see  them  move.  Man,  who  is  nothing  save  a  product 


30 

of  Nature,  an  animal  among  animals,  moves  en  masse,  and 
is  moved  by  the  same  laws  that  govern  other  animals  and 
hold  good  throughout  the  world.  The  individual  counts  for 
little.  The  race  as  a  whole,  changes  slowly.  To  attempt  to 
estimate  the  lapse  of  time  in  tracing  the  career  of  man  on 
the  earth  or  in  any  of  its  continents,  is  puerile.  As  well 
attempt  to>  determine  when  the  first  green  blade  of  grass 
relieved  the  monotony  of  the  dull  brown  earth  ;  when  first 
the  blithesome  carol  of  the  lark  greeted  the  coming  of  the 
welcome  dawn. 

Conceding  this,  the  probability  —  and  this  is  all,  as  yet, 
that  has  been  acquired  by  any  investigator  —  is  that  the  last 
elephant  and  mastadon  had  not  disappeared  before  the 
pioneers  of  the  human  race  in  America  came  upon  the  scene. 
We  cannot  conceive  of  any  discovery  that  will  demonstrate 
that  the  two,  man  and  mastadon,  never  met  in  America. 
We  need  not  be  surprised,  at  any  day,  to  have  all  doubt 
forever  set  aside. 


THE  DELAWARE 


In  Dana's  Manual  of  Geology,1  the  author  thereof,  speak 
ing  of  the  coast  line  of  our  eastern  seaboard  during  the  cre 
taceous  period,  refers  to  the  Delaware  river  as  then  in  exist 
ence,  and  states  that  it  "emptied  into  the  Atlantic  at  Tren 
ton." 

That  portion  of  the  river's  valley  from  Trenton,  north 
ward,  presents  no  features  that  are  not  readily  understood 
by  the  geologist  as  he  passes,  mile  by  mile,  up-stream,  and 
finds  the  hills  that  once  were  rugged  in  outline  and  bare, 
and  now  are  shorn  of  all  unshapeliness  and  covered  with 
dense  vegetation.  Perhaps  shorn,  too,  of  their  height,  for 


Second  Edition,  1875,  p.  478. 


the  term  "mountain"  is  no  longer  applicable.  Tracing  their 
history  the  geologist  finds  no  startling  revelation  of  -stu- 
penduous  activities  or  devastating  cataclysms.  It  is  true 
the  "ringing  rocks"  are  suggestive  of  a  one-time  volcano's 
crater,  but  the  region  as  a  whole  is  not  one  that  puzzles 
by  apparent  contradictions.  These  hills  are  old,  even  geo 
logically  speaking,  yet  they  tell  a  straightforward  story,  and 
the  river  repeats  it  as  it  ripples  at  their  base. 

Far  otherwise,  from  Trenton  southward.  There  we  find 
no  fixed  features.  From  those  far  off  days  when  the  At 
lantic  beat  its  waves  hopelessly  on  the  rocks  that  shut  out 
the  sea,  until  to-day,  when  the  tide  reaches  these  same  rocks, 
but  cannot  ascend  them,  there  has  been  a  long  series  of 
changes  of  more  or  less  marked  degree,  but  no  cessation  of 
them.  Nothing  is  fixed  as  in  the  sense  of  solid  rock.  Here 
to-day  and  gone  to-morrow  has  been  the  fate  of  every  fea 
ture  that  while  it  lasted  bore  the  outward  resemblance  of  a 
permanent  condition.  But  the  to-day  and  to-morrow  of 
which  I  speak  were  no  such  periods  as  these  words  now 
imply.  Geological  reckoning  of  time  is  free  of  the  swad 
dling  clothes  of  numbers.  It  is  sequence  of  event  without 
regard  of  time  duration.  Rocky  strata  are  not  paged  like 
the  leaves  of  a  book  and  the  same  is  equally  true  of  the  strata 
of  sand  and  gravel,  and  the  vast  deposits  of  clay  and  the  thin 
veins  of  it  that  streak  both  the  sand  and  the  gravel.  Here, 
at  Trenton,  at  the  head  of  tide-\vater,  we  can  find  a  deposit 
that  tallies  admirably  with  any  cherished  theory,  but  no 
theory  has  yet  been  framed  that  rationally  includes  all  the 
deposits.  It  would  seem  as  if  geologists  waited  for  gravel 
to  become  solidified,  and  then  they  crystallized  their  erudi 
tion  in  the  word  "conglomerate"  and  looked  wise.  At  this 
no  one  need  wonder.  To  trace  the  history  of  a  gravel  bed 
is  much  like  the  proverbial  search  in  a  haystack  for  a  needle. 
The  associated  pebbles  and  sand  conspire  to  confuse  us. 


32 

They  are  not  always  the  same.  The  face  of  a  bluff  made 
up  of  such  material  as  pebbles,  boulders  and  sand,  with  clay 
enough  to  slightly  cement  the  whole  mass,  does  not  retain 
any  uniformity  as  to  its  composition,  as  day  by  day  the  old 
face  crumbles  and  a  new  one  appears.  A  year's  exploration 
may  lead  to>  the  conclusion  that  no<  large  "erratics"  are  found 
in  the  deposit,  and  then  a  dozen  or  more  may  be  brought  to 
light  of  a  size  that  at  once  determine  the  gravel  was  not  a 
quiet  river-bed  deposit.  Ten  years  may  elapse  and  not  a 
trace  of  bone  is  found,  and  we  begin  to  believe  that  no  mam 
malian  life  occurred  in  the  region  from  which  the  deposit 
was  derived,  and  then  patient  search  at  last  reveals  a  tooth 
or  fragment  of  a  bone.1  A  revision  of  the  conclusions  as  to 
the  gravel's  histO'ry  becomes  necessary.  This  was  notably 
so  of  the  Trenton  gravel,  that  was  originally  set  down  as 
a  deposit  of  water-worn  pebbles  that  have  lost  all  angularity, 
and  so  were  readily  dissociated  from  those  which  go  to 
make  up  the  terminal  moraine,  miles  to  the  northward,  and 
from  which  unquestionably  the  Trenton  gravel  was  derived. 
But,  at  last,  ice-scratched  pebbles  began  to  be  found,  and 
many  a  considerable  portion  of  the  deposit  itself  suggests 
that,  as  a  frozen  mass,  it  moved  southward  without  disin 
tegration  and  settled  quietly  in  this  less  tumultuous  neigh 
borhood.  It  is  very  significant  that  where  the  gravel  least 
suggests  the  probability  of  animal  or  human  remains  they 
appear  never  to  have  occurred,  but  where  this  supposedly 
same  gravel  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  later  origin  and  re 
sembles  more  closely  the  present  river  bed,  there  we  look 
for  traces  of  former  life,  and  are  not  always  disappointed. 
To  recognize  such  differences  as  have  been  here  mentioned  in 
a  formation  geologically  the  same,  and  logically  compre 
hended  under  one  descriptive  term,  it  is  necessary  that  we 


1Mr.  Volk's  finds  include  one  bone  of  a  musk  ox  and  a  fragment 
of  antler. 


33 

see  it  under'  endless  different  conditions,  and  continually, 
year  after  year.  The  visiting  geologist,  seeing  a  cellar  hole 
or  passing  an  hour  along  the  river's  bank,  or  looking  idly 
along  a  railroad  cutting,  acquires  only  that  general  impres 
sion  which  goes  far  to  fill  pages  of  a  geological  report  and 
gives  us  no  information. 

It  is  safe  to  say,  if  there  is  any  element  of  safety  in  such 
trains  of  thought,  that  the  Trenton  gravel  is  derived  from 
the  terminal  moraine  which  extends  across  the  State  some 
miles  northward  of  them,  and  through  which  the  river  found 
its  way,  and  still  finds  it,  in  the  valley  that  now  confines  the 
stream,  but  it.  is  not  safe  to  conclude  that  no  gravel  was 
already  spread  above  the  clay  that  underlies  these  deposits 
as  a  whole.  There  were  pebbles,  as  we  know7,  aeons  before 
glacial  activity,  and  it  does  not  require  the  swift  current 
of  melting  ice  and  snow  to  produce  them. 

An  exhaustive  examination,  in  1907,  of  the  material 
dredged  from  the  bed  of  the  river  at  Periwig  bar,1  within 
the  tide-water  area  but  near  its  termination,  revealed  the 
fact  that  many  hard  substances  of  known  origin,  as  brick, 
glass  and  earthen  ware,  had  been  rolled  and  rounded  in  the 
sand  until  very  pebble-like  in  shape  and  given  a  surface 
that  made  their  true  character  problematical  until  closely 
examined.  It  was  somewhat  disconcerting  to  find  that 
objects  that  were  fashioned  well  within  the  century  were 
so  altered  by  water-wearing.  How,  then,  could  we  expect 
a  chipped  argillite  implement  to  escape  obliteration  of  all 
evidence  of  its  artificialty?  If  these  objects,  which,  if  of 
Indian  origin,  could  not  be  less  than  two  hundred  and 


aPeriwig  bar  was  originally  an  island  of  some  extent  and  covered 
with  a  dense  growth  of  trees  and  shrubbery.  The  one-time  site  of 
an  Indian  village.  The  channel  of  the  river  was  between  it  and  the 
Pennsylvania  shore.  The  material  removed  by  the  dredgers  was  largely 
the  base  of  the  island  which  was  washed  away  to  the  water's  edge 
in  the  great  ice- jam  and  freshet  of  February,  1857. 

3 


34 

twenty-five  years  old,  had  rolled  down  the  river  from  the 
argillite  quarries  and  been  subsequently  subjected  to  water 
and  sand  erosion,  would  they  not  have  lost  all  trace  of 
their  chipping";  would  not  the  outline  of  every  spall  detached 
be  worn  away?  This,  it  is  submitted,  argues  more  against 
the  modern  or  Mercerian-Holmesian  view  than  against 
that  which  I  uphold.  As  well  defined  artifacts  do  occur 
in  the  gravel  and  such  gravel  was  all  transported  by  water, 
it  is  apparent  that  when  they  were  dropped  to  near  or  in 
quite  the  position  where  they  now  occur  they  were  protected 
by  prompt  inhumation,  as  where  there  was  yielding  sand 
and  a  generally  loose  texture  of  the  mass,  and  inasmuch 
as  angular  pebbles  with  sharp  edges  and  others  still  bearing 
ice-scratches  occur  sparingly  in  the  deposit,  there  is  no 
reason  why  an  artifact  should  not  retain  its  artifactuality. 
They  were  never  subjected  to  like  conditions  as  the  pebbles 
that  were  dredged  from,  the  present  river  bed,  or  never  to 
the  same  extent.  The  men  who  chipped  them,  it  must 
ever  be  kept  in  mind,  \vere  not  amphibious  animals.  They 
need  not  have  been  as  much  at  home  on  the  \vater  as  the 
Eskimo.  There  was  ever  a  wide  range  of  land  near  by, 
over  which  no  ice-sheet  found  its  way,  and  no  floods 
covered  the  forest-clad  sands  of  the  river's  eastern  shore. 
The  terminal  moraine  \vas  fifty  miles  away.  That  this  sup 
posed  ancient  man  of  glacial  time  frequented  the  water  and 
hunted  the  seal,  walrus  and  musk  ox,  is  scarcely  question 
able,  and  the  objects  that  he  lost,  his  "palaeolithic"  artifact 
may  have  long  lain  on  the  gravel  before  floods  brought 
down  additional  material  and  co'vering  it,  it  rested  at  last  in 
the  gravel. 

The  great  heterogeneous  mass  or  deposit  known  now 
as  the  Trenton  gravel  was  not  poured  down  the  valley 
like  tea  from  the  ,spout  of  a  pot,  or  came  tumbling  down 
from  the  hill-sides  spasmodically,  spreading  over  the  low 


35 

lands  and  filling  the  depressions  as  lava  from  a  volcano, 
in  a  brief  space,  changes  the  landscape.  Just  as  now  we 
have  floods  at  intervals  that  are  irresistable  and  over 
spread  great  areas  of  the  lowlands,  so  in  glacial  times  there 
were  evidently  even  mightier  ones  that  brought  down  mud, 
gravel  and  sand  as  they  now  bring  down  wood,  and  brought 
also  boulders  weighing  tons,  as  to-day  they  bring  down 
great  trees  from  the  sad  remnants  of  the  mountain  forests. 
What  at  that  time  happened  here  at  Trenton?  The  flow 
was  checked.  The  tide  held  back  to*  .some  extent  the  on 
ward  rush  of  water.  It  became  almost  quiet  as  it  spread 
over  the  shallows  and  the  material  carried  alone  bv  the 

o         -> 

water  settled  to  the  bottom  of  the  stream  proper  and 
wherever  it  found  its  way.  Even  some  fragile  articles,  as 
mussel  shells,  escaped  destruction.  Here,  at  such  a  time, 
at  such  a  place,  an  artifact  might  readily  become  embedded. 
Never  an  artisan  who  has  not  lost  a  tool,  so  never  a  hunter 
that  has  not  lost  a  weapon. 

That  under  such  conditions  as  then  obtained,  the  same 
form  of  artifact  should  occur  upon  the  surfaces  of  the 
ground  older  than  the  gravel  deposits  is  nothing  strange. 
The  claim  so  frequently  made  that  to  be  truly  palaeolithic 
they  should  be  confined  to  the  gravel  and  at  a  significant 
depth  therein  is  simply  an  absurdity.  As  well  ascribe 
modernity  to  all  pebbles,  because  single  they  crop  out  every 
where.  The  occurrence  on  the  surface  of  formations  older 
than  the  gravel — in  this  case,  the  Columbia  sands  and 
gravel — of  rudely  fashioned  argillite  artifacts  does  not 
modernize  or  "Indianize"  them,  because  their  true  character 
is  indicated  by  the  few  which  are  in  the  gravel.  That  such 
inhumation  is  accidental  is  set  aside  by  the  irresistible  fact 
that  nothing  else  attributable  to  man  is  likewise  buried  in 
such  manner.  Whatever  is  found  is  of  the  one  character, 
and  if  objects  thus  fashioned  are  artificial,  and  no  com- 


36 

petent  judge  longer  disputes  it,  and  point  to  a  one-time 
and  very  ancient  phase  of  culture  in  other  continents,  why 
not  point  in  the  same  direction  on  our  own? 

After  long  years  of  search,  as  opportunity  afforded,  and 
where  there  was  every  sort  of  obstacle  to  overcome,  I  have 
failed  to  find  in  the  material  brought  from  the  present  river 
bed  any  Indian  relic  that  has  suffered  erosion  to  such  extent 
as  to  render  its  original  outline  indistinct.  I  have  axes, 
celts  and  arrowheads  from  the  beds  of  streams,  but  they 
show  but  little  difference  from  those  found  upland.  They 
are  smoother  and  have  a  polish  that  only  water  could  give 
them.  Occasionally,  however,  it  happens  that  a  polished 
pebble  is  found,  the  outline  of  which  is  very  suggestive. 
Such  as  I  have  seen  are  all  of  a  size  and  shape  to  bring  the 
palaeolithic  artifact  to  mind.  The  outlines  of  the  various 
surfaces  where  flakes  had  been  detached  could  be  traced  by 
the  sense  of  touch  and  sometimes  plainly  seen.  They  are 
water-worn  pebbles  now,  but  if  these  same  outlines  were 
distinct  and  sharp  and  the  surface  of  the  object  rough  in 
stead  of  polished,  then  there  would  be  no*  doubt  as  to  their 
artificial  origin.  The  one  important  question  is,  are  they 
palaeolithic  artifacts  that  have  been  so  long  rolled  about  in 
sharp  sand  and  water  as  to  lose  all  their  characteristic 
features  since  they  dropped  from  the  hand  of  man  ?  If  we 
could  but  see  this  material  that  now  constitutes  the  bed  of 
the  river  as  it  was  centuries  ago,  probably  our  decision 
would  be  prompt  and  explicit  rather  than  as  now  when  the 
bravest  dare  but  timidly  hint  at  a  bare  possibility. 

If  glass,  brick  and  vitreous  china  can  be  converted  into 
smooth  water-worn  pebbles  in  less  than  one  hundred  years, 
why  should  not  in  as  short  a  time,  under  like  conditions, 
the  distinctive  features  o<f  a  chipped  implement  be  oblit 
erated  ?  I  do  not  presume  to  offer  any  explanation  beyond 
what  I  have  already  suggested,  that  some  objects  are  ex- 


37 

posed  to  the  eroding-  action  of  sand  and  water  while  others 
are  so  lodged  between  protecting  stones  that  they  escape. 
The  material,  too,  has  something  to  do  with  it.  Glass, 
brick  and  china  are  not  as  hard  as  quartz,  jasper  and  some 
of  the  argillite,  and  as  these  modern  objects  have  fallen  into 
a  now  comparatively  quiet  river  and  lie  exposed  to  shifting 
sands  for  an  indefinite  period,  while  years  ago  the  palaeo 
lithic  artifacts  were  all  too  likely  to  be  wedged  in  among 
large  pebbles  that  effectually  protected  them. 

The  bed  of  the  Delaware  river,  from  twelve  to  fifteen 
hundred  feet  wide,  at  the  head  of  tide  water,  is  a  contra 
diction  in  one  way.  An  acre  or  more  of  pebbles,  another  of 
sand  and  scattered  areas  of  tenacious  mud  and  then  wide 
reaches  of  coarse  or  fine  gravel.  Just  why  not  a  fairly  uni 
form  mixture  of  all  these  materials  is  not  readily  explained. 
The  numerous  attempts  to  make  the  problem  very  clear 
only  succeed  in  muddying  the  situation.  Any  one  given 
condition  of  the  river  bottom  is  always  well  marked  to  its 
boundaries  and  there  it  abruptly  ceases.  There  is  no 
marked  overlapping.  All  the  while  the  water  is  steadily 
flowing  up  or  down  stream,  but  the  bed  of  the  stream  is 
undisturbed.  An  occasional  freshet,  by  reason  of  the 
•greater  volume  of  water  and  greatly  increased  rapidity  of 
flow,  equal  to  overcoming  the  opposing  tide,  may  radically 
change  the  surface  of  the  bed,  but  when  the  waters  recede 
to  normal  conditions  the  varied  condition  of  the  bed  is  again 
found.  The  arrangement  may  be  different,  but  it  has  been 
simply  the  shifting  of  the  conditions ;  where  pebbly,  now 
sandy;  where  muddy,  now  an  area  of  pebbles. 

It  can,  I  think,  readily  be  seen  that  the  effect  upon  an 
artifact  of  lying  for  a  very  protracted  period  in  the  bed  of 
the  river,  would  depend  a  great  deal,  if  not  wholly,  upon 
the  character  of  the  immediate  surroundings.  If  buried  in 


38 

mud,  it  would  remain  intact;  if  tossed  to  and  fro,  rolling 
hither  and  yon  over  sand,  and  sand  forever  passing  over 
it,  every  angle  would  ultimately  be  worn  away.  Thus,  it 
would  be  possible  for  two  argillite  artifacts,  dropped  in  the 
river  at  one  time,  to  become  wholly  different  in  appearance 
in  the  course  of  time;  one  escaping  erosion  and  the  other 
losing  every  trace  of  its  original  faceted  surface.  Perhaps 
it  is  the  wiser  plan  to  rule  all  such  out  of  court,  but  happily 
the  preserved  artifact  occurs  under  such  circumstances  as 
to  keep  alive  a  doubt  as  to  the  justice  of  such  ruling. 
Ancient  man  in  North  America  may  never  be  "officially" 
recognized,  but  he  will  never  be  relegated  to  the  limbo  of 
the  visionary  or  mythical. 

In  1892  I  discovered  the  site  of  a  fur  trader's  post,  built 
in  1640-50,  on  the  lower  or  southwestern  end  of  Burling 
ton  Island.  It  appears  to  have  been  destroyed  by  fire  about 
a  century  later.  The  glass,  earthenware,  lead,  brass,  cop 
per  and  iron  and  the  innumerable  odds  and  ends  once  in  use 
by  the  occupants  of  the  place,  were  found,  not  only  in  the 
cellar  hole,  but  in  the  sands  that  for  years  had  here  been 
shifting  to  and  fro  with  the  tides,  and  occasionally  more 
violently  agitated  by  storms.  They  had  not  suffered  alike. 
Many  were  worn  and  polished  until  recognized  with  diffi 
culty,  while  others  retained  their  freshness  of  surface  and 
gave  no  hint  of  having  been  for  more  than  a  century  ex 
posed  to  the  tender  mercies  of  shifting  sands  and  troubled 
waters.  This  was  particularly  noticeable  among  the  glass 
and  polychrome  paste  beads,  large  numbers  of  which  were 
found. 

Shifting  our  view,  then,  from  the  river  of  to-day  to  the 
far  greater  river  of  glacial  times,  it  is  not  difficult  to  under 
stand  that  many  a  smooth  pebble,  with  its  lines  suggestive 
of  a  chipped  surface,  might  have  been,  in  truth,  an  artifact, 
and  that  others,  as  found  in  the  gravel  to-day,  should  retain 


39 

all  the  outlines  of  that  chipping  which  converted  a  pebble 
into  an  artifact. 

If  this  present  bed  o<f  the  river,  for  a  mile  or  more  from 
the  head  of  tide-water,  up  and  down  stream,  were  lifted  and 
shifted  to  dry  land,  and  then  cross  sections  made  of  it,  as 
we  make  them  of  the  great  upland  deposit  to-day,  we  would 
find  as  many  and  as  great  differences  every  few  rods  in  the 
one  case  as  we  do  in  the  other.  It  is  all  "gravel"  in  either 
case,  of  the  same  age  and  origin,  and  no  distinction  should 
be  made,  but  we  are  constantly  told  that  in  the  present  great 
deposit  of  Trenton  gravel  that  in  one  locality  we  have  the 
original  laying  down  of  the  material,  and  in  another  we 
have  it  reasserted  by  a  very  local  cataclysmic  disturbance, 
and  so  one  horizon  of  sand  and  gravel  is  much,  or  signifi 
cantly  newer  than  another,  and  so  to<  the  end  o>f  a  tedious 
chapter. 

The  single  conclusion  that  the  archaeologist  can  reach  is 
that  this  Trenton  gravel,  as  a  whole,  with  whatever  it  con 
tains  of  traces  of  man,  belongs  to  a  time  when  the  general 
outlook  from  the  high  lands  about  the  valley  was  materially 
different  from  that  of  to-day,  and  the  lapse  of  time  from 
that  day  to  this  has  been  sufficient  to  give  the  artifacts  and 
bones  of  Arctic  mammals  and  of  man  an  archaeological  as 
distinguished  from  an  historical  or  pre-historical  signifi 
cance,  and  it  violates  rational  procedure  to  relegate  all  of 
human  origin  that  we  find  in  the  gravel  to<  a  later  date  than 
the  gravel's  accumulation  and  escape  the  necessity  of  ade 
quate  explanation  by  calling  every  stone  implement  that 
happens  to  be  vexatiously  out  of  place  an  "intrusive"  ob 
ject,  and  staring  as  fixedly  into  space  as  the  Sphynx  looks 
over  the  Egyptian  plain,  when  the  character  of  that  in 
trusion  is  demanded. 

When  viewing  an  exposure  of  a  vast  deposit  of  gravel 
and  wondering  what  were  the  conditions  that  brought  these 


40 

pebbles,  sand,  clay  and  boulders  here,  the  picture  we  fancy 
is  not  a  photograph  of  an  actuality.  Conception  is  crude,  at 
best,  when  we  attempt  to  re-build  the  past.  Marvel,  as  well 
we  may,  at  what  has  been  done,  we  must  admit  the  lacking 
of  a  vast  array  of  details.  We  have  a  few  brief  sketches  of 
ancient  shores  and  seas,  of  one-time  forests  and  faunas,  but 
it  is  all  as  is  a  cemetery  to  a  city. 

Sand  does  not  suggest  a  flood  nor  small  pebbles  a  dis 
astrous  freshet.  The  quiet  methods  of  the  present  languid 
river  only  seem  equal  to  so  insignificant  a  task,  but  when 
a  huge  boulder  is  exposed  to  view,  we  are  no  longer  mentally 
inert.  We  have  been  contemplating  Nature  at  play;  now 
we  see  evidence  of  a  real  exertion.  Not  all  the  ponderous 
tomes  ever  printed  about  the  Great  Ice  Age  can  make  us  see 
a  rock,  weighing  thousands  of  pounds,  floating  clown  the 
river.  As  a  theory  in  the  class  room,  "erratics"  are  within 
our  grasp,  but  when  we  find  them  in  the  field,  they  appear 
so1  different.  They  stare  at  you  as  fixedly  as  you  hopelessly 
look  at  them.  That  there  is  a  great  gulf,  between  the  present 
and  the  past,  we  now  fully  recognize.  The  disappearance 
of  a  period  and  appearance  of  another  proves  something 
more  than  the  passing  of  to-day  and  the  coming  of  to-mor 
row.  The  outlook  before  the  gravel  was  laid  down  ;  what  the 
landscape  before  it  was  covered  with  this  pebbly  mass ;  what 
the  fauna  and  flora;  where  then  the  river's  channel,  we  can 
conjecture,  but  how  unsatisfactory  it  all  is,  if  our  interest 
is  really  aroused. 

A  great  argillite  boulder,  measuring  ten  feet  in  length, 
seven  in  width  and  five  in  thickness,  was  recently  exposed  in 
an  extensive  series  of  excavations,  near  Bristol,  Pennsyl 
vania,  where  the  Trenton  gravel  reaches  to  the  present  sur 
face,  and  often  has  no  distinctly  traceable  soil  above  it.  It 
fills  now  a  one-time  river  bed,  the  limits  of  which,  in  pre- 
glacial  time,  were  defined  by  vast  deposits  oi  clay.  The 


41 

coarse  gravel  and  sand  were  not  only  over  and  about  the 
boulder  but  extended  many  feet  below  it.  It  rested  on  the 
gravel  as  well  as  in  it.  It  could  only  have  reached  its  present 
resting  place  through  the  agency  of  a  vast  ice  field  floating 
toward  the  sea.  No  other  explanation  has  ever  been  offered. 
That  such  an  occurrence  ever  happened  here  may  be  hard  to 
realize,  yet  here  is  an  irrefragable  proof.  As  a  geological 
phenomenon,  it  is  but  one  of  many  and  one  of  minor  im 
portance  save  for  this,  which  enhances  its  importance  a 
thousand  fold,  the  association  of  this  boulder  with  the 


Fig.  2.     Boulder  in  Trenton  gravel,  near  which  implement  was  found. 

history  of  early  man.  At  such  suggestion,  this  huge  rock, 
which  excited  wonder,  now  startles  us.  There  is  something 
illogical  in  this  attempting  to  trace  back  the  career  of  our 
own  kind.  We  seem  never  in  the  same  frame  of  mind  as 
when  studying  some  fossil  shell  or  bone  of  an  extinct 
mammal.  These  are  here,  of  course.  Why  not?  But 
remains  of  man;  O!  that  is  different.  It  may  be  argued 
until  doom's  day  that  it  is  inherently  improbable  that  man 
should  have  been  associated  with  a  pliocene  fauna,  but  could 


42 

it  have  been  any  more  difficult  than  to  live,  as  a  low  species  of 
Homo  does  today,  with  the  fauna  of  an  African  jungle  or 
with  the  marsupials  of  Australia,  survivors  of  a  still  more 
ancient  time? 

Seldom  so  favorable  an  opportunity  for  searching"  in  the 
gravel  occurs  as  this  has  been  at  Bristol,  and  the  result  of 
frequent  visits  is  one  chipped  sandstone  pebble.  Not  a 
splinter  of  bone  or  fragment  of  shell,  in  thousands  of  cubic 
yards  of  the  deposit  that  I  closely  inspected.  But,  is  it 
really  not  enough  ?  One  coin  always  means  the  minting  of 
many,  but  many  do  not  tell  the  history  of  the  coinage  better 


Fig.  3.     Palaeolithic  implement  found  in  situ  at  Bristol,  Pennsylvania. 

than  one.  Show  me  a  single  shaving  that  I  know  has  been 
peeled  from  wood  by  a  modern  plane,  and  I  will  prove  to 
you  there  was  a  carpenter,  and  yet,  if  this  broken  stone, 
broken  as  Nature  never  did  or  could  break  a  pebble,  is  held 
up  as  evidence  that  a  man  was  here  to!  break  it,  when  or 
before  this  boulder  came  floating  -across  the  country  and 
that  where  the  land  now  is  dry  was  once  a  bay-like  ex 
pansion  of  the  ancient  stream — if  this  single  stone  is  held  up 
and  we  say,  here  is  proof  that  an  implement  maker  was 
then  in  the  land,  with  what  derision  is  the  assertion  met ! 


43 

Is  science  still  in  its  swaddling  clothes  ? 

Were  the  geological  history  of  the  Delaware  valley  the 
opening  chapter  of  a  long  series  of  revelations  as  to  man's 
career  on  earth  then  it  might  well  be  held  as  visionary  in 
the  extreme  that  man,  almost  primitive  in  condition,  once 
sojourned  here  and  led  a  by  no  means  ideal  existence,  but 
wrhen  we  consider  that  such  men,  under  such  conditions, 
are  known  to  have  flourished  in  many  another  portion  of 
the  globe,  the  difficulties  as  to  his  one-time  long  ago  pres 
ence  here  largely  disappear.  The  Delaware  valley  is  not  a 
prominent  part  of  the  record  of  man  on  earth,  but  an  humble 
supplement  to  an  elaborate  volume  or  trifling  foot  note  to 
a  pregnant  page. 

THK   KSKIMO   AND   ARGILUTE   MAN. 

It  is  useless  to  deny  that  to  a  large  extent  that  which 
comes  within  the  scope  of  North  American  archaeology  is 
purely  speculative.  Conclusions  are  sometimes  formed  in 
accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  probabilities.  Our  seem 
ingly  very  natural  inference  is  often  rudely  jostled  by  evi 
dence.  What  we  know  as  history  does  not  always  rest  upon 
a  rock  foundation,  and  pre-history  has  at  best  but  a  doubtful 
footing  on  the  shifting  sands.  As  to  the  relationship  of  the 
Eskimo  to  the  Indian,  conclusions  as  to  the  past  are  based 
upon  the  solitary  fact  that  at  present  the  two  people  are  liv 
ing  in  regions  that  are  contiguous.  This,  of  itself,  concerns 
only  the  ethnologist.  The  archaeologist  wishes  to  know  if 
the  present  geographical  status  of  these  people  ever  ma 
terially  differed  from  what  now  obtains. 

The  following  from  Brinton,1  bearing  on  the  subject,  is 
given  entire.  Nothing  later  is  more  definite :  "The  name 


s  of  the  New  World,  by  D.  G.  Brinton,  2nd  Ed.  1876,  p.  24. 
Foot  note. 


44 

Eskimo'  is  from  the  Algonkin  word  Eskimantick ,  eaters  of 
raw  fish.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  at  one  time  they 
possessed  the  Atlantic  coast  considerably  to  the  .south.  The 
Northmen,  in  the  year  1000,  found  the  natives  of  Vinland, 
probably  near  Rhode  Island,  of  the  same  race  as  they  were 
familiar  with  in  Labrador.  They  contemptuously  call  them 
Skralingar,  chips,  and  describe  them  as  numerous  and  short 
of  stature.  (Eric  Rothens  Saga,  in  Mueller,  Sagsenbib- 
liothek,  p.  214).  It  is  curious  that  the  traditions  of  the 
Tuscaroras,  who  placed  their  arrival  on  the  Virginian  coast 
about  1300,  spoke  of  the  race  they  found  there  (called 
Tacci  or  Dogi)  as  eaters  of  raw  flesh  and  ignorant  of  maize. 
(Loderer,  Account  of  North  America,  in  Harris,  Voyages). 
If  these  now  circumpolar  people  once  were  inhabitants 
of  what  is  now  New  Jersey,  practicing  the  same  mode  of  life 
and  possessing  the  same  artistic  taste  and  capabilities,  then  it 
is  incredible  that  no  traces  of  this  handiwork  should  occur. 
So  far  as  my  own  observation  goes  and  experience  covers 
the  result  of  collecting,  whatever  of  bone,  slate  or  steatite 
that  has  been  discovered,  occurred  under  .such  circumstances 
as  to  warrant  its  being-  attributed  to  the  Indians  of  com- 

o 

paratively  recent  date.  While  negative  evidence  is  to  be 
treated  with  caution  and  the  Indian,  with  whom  we  are  sup 
posed  to  be  acquainted,  is  still  very  much  of  a  stranger,  it 
is  obviously  rash  to  speak  positively.  That  is  the  practice, 
if  not  privilege,  of  the  theorist.  But  the  negative  evidence 
to  date  is  so  impressive  by  reason  of  its  prominence  that 
we  are  led  to  give  it  respectful  consideration  and  accept  it, 
tentatively,  as  demonstrating  that  the  man  of  the  Argillite 
period,  as  I  have  defined  it,  was  nearer  an  art-less  Eskimo 
than  the  artistic  Algonquin.  The  conditions,  if  specialized 
argillite  implements  really  date  back  to  so  remote  a  time 
as  the  dying  efforts  of  glacial  activity — when  land  now  dry 
for  undeterminable  centuries  was  subject  to  overflow  by 


45 


Wa-fc^  «n-«»«*«.  *f*»T»,lZt=-. 


Fig.   4.     Gravel  and  superimposed   sand  and   soil  as   seen  south   of 
Trenton,  N.  J. 


46 

floods  that  carried  sand  from  distant  points — were  such  that 
the  present  Eskimo  would  be  more  at  home  than  he  could 
be  at  present,  or  at  any  time  during  Indian  occupation.  We 
do  know  that  arctic  animals  once  abounded.  But  here,  at 
once,  difficulty  arises.  If  bones  of  arctic  mammals  occur, 
why  not  those  of  arctic  man?  This  is  a  legitimate  query, 
but  of  greater  significance  is  the  absence  in  New  Jersey  of 
Eskimo  art.  It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  this  had  not 
developed,  when  we  find  that  Pleistokene  art  (Europe) 
and  Bushman  art  (Africa)  and  the  art  of  the  circumpolar 
regions  are  one  in  origin,  and  certainly  Pleistokene  art 
dates  back  many  thousands  of  years  ago*.  The  difficulty 
cannot  be  overcome  by  the  convenient  suggestion  that 
Eskimo  art  in  New  Jersey  might  all  have  been  destroyed. 
That  is  an  impossibility,  nor  can  we  say  that  it  has  been 
overlooked.  Certain  etched  stones  might  readily  have  been 
incised  so<  long  ago  as  when  argillite  man  flourished  on 
the  treeless,  sandy  plains  of  central  Jersey,  but  these  are 
not  distinguishable  from  incised  stones  known  to  be  the 
handiwork  o-f  the  later  Indians.  Probabilities  are  a  neces 
sity  with  the  historian,  but  the  archaeologist  calls  for  more 
substantial  matter.  His  tools  and  material  must  be  more 
tangible  and  equal  to  the  .severest  strain  of  logical  conclu 
sion. 

The  suggestion  that  the  argillite  man  of  the  Delaware 
valley  antedates  circumpolar  art  calls  for  too  great  a  lapse 
of  time,  and  that  he  lived  a  life  too  strenuous  for  art  is  to 
suggest  that  his  career  was  wholly  different  from  that  of 
all  other  people,  for  nowhere  is  art  non-existent.  His 
implements  for  domestic  uses,  as  well  as  those  for  hunting- 
and  fishing,  might  possibly  be  shown  to  bear  a  closer  re 
semblance  to  Eskimo1  than  to  Indian  forms,  but  such  at 
tempts  have  not  proved  conclusive.  Stone  implements  are 


aBalch.    Comparative  Art.    Philadelphia,  1906,  p.  35,  et  seq. 


47 

much  the  same  the  wide  world  over.  The  celt,  spear  and 
arrowpoint  are  cosmopolitan,  and  few  aberrant  forms  but 
are  approached  by  an  occasional  disploy  of  invention  on 
part  of  a  savage  thousands  of  miles  away.  The  semi-lunar 
knife,  as  as  instance,  is  a  characteristic  Eskimo  implement, 
but  as  found  in  New  Jersey,  is  o<f  so  recent  origin,  if  we 
may  judge  from  its  appearance,  that  it  is  a  strictly  modern 
Indian  form,  copied,  doubtless,  from  such  knives  in  use 
where  Eskimo  and  Indian  came  in  contact. 

In  the  absence  of  a  sufficient  series  of  crania1  from  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  and  the  coastal  plain  of  Xew  Jersey 
that  are  clearly  not  Algonkin ;  in  the  absence  of  etched 
ivory  and  wrought  bone,2  the  relationship  of  argillite  man 
and  the  Eskimo  must  be  held  in  abeyance,  but  this  indefinite 
status  does  not  make  the  identity  of  argillite  man  and  the 
Delaware  Indian  more  probable.  Rather,  the  Eskimo  and 
argillite  man  were  once  neighbors,  and  while  the  former 
has  held  his  own  in  less  favored  lands,  the  latter  gave  way, 
at  last,  either  to  natural  adverse  conditions  or  proved  un 
equal  to  contending  against  a  superior  invading  host. 

If  the  Eskimo  once  dwelt  far  south  of  that  people's  pres 
ent  range;  if  New  Jersey  was  once  much  like  what  Labrador 
now  is,  then  it  is  not  difficult  to  realize  that  the  two  people 
were  near  neighbors,  as  they  have  been  for  an  indefinite 
period  since,  when  all  come  within  the  scope  of  the  term 
"Indian,"  that  are  not  distinctly  the  circumpolar  race.  My 
own  contention  has  always  been  that  the  earliest  people  in 
the  Delaware  valley  i  e.,  post-palaeolithic,  were  much  like 
the  Eskimo  in  way  of  living,  because  of  geological  condi- 


1  The  value  of  craniology  in  determining  the  identity  of  a  people  is 
likely  to  be  overrated.     Certainly,  there  is  not  a  fixed  Lenni   Lenape 
type    of    skull.      They    range    from    extreme    dolicocephaly    to    brachy- 
cephaly ;  while  minor  characteristics  vary  indefinitely. 

2  Walrus  remains  occur  in  superficial  deposits  in  New  Jersey. 


48 

tions  that  seem  to  have  then  prevailed,  but  not  that  they 
were  identical. 

If  palaeolithic  man  is  the  ancestor  of  the  Eskimo,  as  is 
probable,  then  the  argillite  man  of  the  Delaware  valley  and 
of  a  considerable  extent  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard  must  be 
traced  to  him,  as  a  people  whom  circumstance  never  drove 
from  their  original  abiding  place.  Contemporaries  of  their 
neighbors  of  the  north,  but  only  remotely  consanguineous ; 
a  people  that  had  a  long  career,  but  not  an  eventful  one, 
and  finally  disappeared  either  long  before  or  when  the 
southern  Lenape  appeared  upon  the  scene. 

If  the  sea  coast  of  New  Jersey,  from  Sandy  Hook  to 
Cape  May,  was  restored  to  its  condition  of  some  centuries 
ago ;  if  the  firm  land  that  has  disappeared  and  the  primeval 
forests  that  covered  it  was  again  in  existence,  the  archaeolo 
gist  would  find  satisfactory  evidence  in  abundance  of  the 
one-time  habitation  of  man  who  flourished  here,  after  his 
fashion,  ages  anterior  to  the  dawn  of  history.  That  such 
conditions  as  fertile  land,  a  varied  fauna,  dense  forests  and 
a  moderate  climate  should  attract  humanity  as  yet  untram- 
meled  by  the  exactions  of  a  depressing  civilization,  is  not 
strange,  and  how  long  the  region  was  populated,  and  by  no 
means  sparsely,  is  attested  by  the  abundance,  extent  and 
significant  depth  of  the  shell  heaps  that  still  remain.1  They 
afford  us  irrefutable  evidence  of  the  changes  that  have  oc 
curred  since  the  first  fire  was  built  and  shells  began  to  ac 
cumulate  at  some  chosen  point.  High,  dry,  habitable  land 
then,  which  now  at  the  lowest  stages  of  the  tide  are  still 
beneath  the  water.  The  attempts  that  are  frequently  made 
to  minimize  their  importance  as  bearing  upon  the  question 
of  man's  antiquity  fail  for  the  simple  reason  that  we  have 
no  evidence  that  the  subsidence  of  the  land  has  been  con- 


Primitive  Industry,  Salem,  Mass.,  1881,  p.  520. 


49 

tinuous  and  at  a  uniform  rate.  We  are  asked  to  believe 
that  century  after  century  and  year  after  year  there  has 
been  a  steady,  uninterrupted,  clock-work  progression 
towards  a  given  end,  but  demonstration  of  this  is  lacking. 
Theory  should  not  always  be  conducted  to  the  highest  seat 
when  councils  are  convened.  Let  facts  be  heard  occas 
ionally,  if  only  to  break  the  monotony. 

These  shell  heaps,  so  far  as  the  writer  is  aware,  are  to 
be  attributed  to  the  Indian,  unless  we  except  certain  ones 
where  the  late  Dr.  Samuel  Lockwood,  near  Keyport,  N.  J., 
found  only  argillite  and  an  absence  of  pottery.  Certainly, 
so  far  as  yet  explored,  they  contain  jasper  and  quartz  arrow- 
points  and  knives  and  fragments  of  pottery,  and  a  good  deal 
of  this  so  thin  and  neatly  decorated  that  it  indicates  a  very 
late  Indian  occupation  of  these  shell  heap  neighborhoods. 
But  as  a  whole,  extending  for  hundreds  of  miles  near  the 
shore  line  and  back  into  the  country,  but  where  salt  water 
•still  reaches,  these  vast  deposits  of  shells,  gathered  by  man, 
indicate  a  lapse  of  time  that  is  not  readily  reckoned  by 
years.  They  indicate  that  the  Indian  gradually  overspread 
the  present  area  of  the  state  and  gained  a  foothold  on  every 
rod  of  available  land  within  sight  of  the  ocean  and  along 
all  the  tortuous  rivers  that,  after  flowing  for  miles  through 
dark,  unbroken  forests,  reached  sunlight  and  the  sea. 

Not  everywhere,  however,  is  quite  the  same  story  told. 
Time  has  not  brought  about  quite  the  same  change  along 
the  entire  coast.  It  was  not  always  a  matter  of  ever-shifting 
sands.  The  land  may  be  sinking,  as  has  been  stated,1  at 


^'Measurements  agree  in  giving  the  rate  of  subsidence  as  about  two 
feet  in  a  century,  or  one-quarter  of  an  inch  a  year.  The  whole  amount 
of  this  subsidence  is  not  known ;  it  must,  at  least,  equal  the  whole  depth 
from  high-water  mark  to  the  lowest  points  at  which  stumps  and  roots 
of  trees  have  been  found  in  their  places  of  growth.  This  ****  is  seven 
teen  feet,  and  it  may  be  more."  Cook:  Geology  of  New  Jersey,  1868, 
p.  362.  See  also  Abbott :  Primitive  Industry,  Salem,  Mass.,  1881,  p.  478. 

4 


50 

a  given  rate  per  century,  but  this  has  not  had  the  same 
effect  at  all  points.  The  envious  sea  has  not  been  uniformly 
successful  in  destruction  of  dry  land.  Traces  of  very  old 
New  Jersey  still  look  out  upon  the  ocean.  Near  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  State,  at  Five  Mile  Beach,  now 
better  known  as  Holly  Beach,  Wildwood  and  Anglesea, 
there  stood  some  years  ago  the  remains  of  a  one-time  ex 
tensive  and  truly  magnificant  forest.  This  "beach"  by 
reason,  it  may  be,  of  its  more  tenacious  foundation  of  in 
durated  clay,  defied  the  encroaching  sea,  and  retained,  when 
land  for  miles  about  it  had  disappeared,  the  features  of 
that  main  land  of  which  it  was  at  one  time  a  seaward 
extending  continuation. 

The  principal  feature  of  this  trace  of  a  forest  is,  or  was, 
its  magnificent  hollies  (Ilex  opaca).  One  measured  twenty- 
three  inches  in  diameter  and  was  fully  forty  feet  high,  and 
many  another,  though  smaller,  gave  every  evidence  of  equal, 
if  not  greater  age.  There  is  always  an  "ear-mark"  of  age 
in  a  forest  as  a  whole  that  single  trees  do>  not  always  have. 
We  can,  when  walking  on  an  ancient  forest  floor,  feel  an 
antiquity  that  is  not  always  revealed  to  the  eye.  There  is 
many  a  patriarchal  dwarf  in  every  community  of  giants. 
We  are  too  apt  to  be  impressed  with  great  dimensions  and 
never  inquire  if  the  impression  includes  all  the  truth.  One 
monster  of  a  tulip  tree  I  knew  of  was  looked  upon  as  a 
relic  of  a  misty  past  until  it  was  felled,  when  the  rings  of 
annual  growth  told  a  straight  story  that  ended  the  fairy 
tales  of  my  neighbors. 

Hollies  are  trees  of  slow  growth  and  so,  too,  are  the  red 
cedars  (Juniperus  Virginianus),  and  here  at  Wildwood 
stood  one,  the  trunk  of  which  was  four  feet  in  diameter. 
Such  cedars  now  are  very  rare,  if  indeed  there  is  still  one 
standing.  It  towered  to  a  height  (estimated)  of  one  hun 
dred  feet.  There  was  nothing  to  show  that  it  had  been 


favored  by  Nature  beyond  others  of  its  kind.  It  simply 
had  escaped  the  vicissitudes  of  flood  and  fire,  and  a  lusty 
sapling  when  only  the  lonely  savage  had  passed  that  way, 
had  flourished  until  the  white  man's  coming  doomed  the 
forest  and  all  that  Nature  had  done  to  make  the  land  beau 
tiful,  to  destruction.  While  a  specimen  brick  tells  little  of 
the  house  that  has  been  built  of  such,  a  cedar  like  that  men 
tioned  gives  us  more  than  a  glimpse  of  the  forest  that  once 
crowned  this  highland  by  the  sea.  Such  trees  are  shown 
not  to  have  been  an  exception,  from  the  fact  that  many  of 
like  dimensions  have  been  discovered,  lying  in  what  is  now 
a  marsh. 

"Mr.  Charles  Ludlam1  counted  seven  hundred  rings  of 
annual  growth  in  a  tree  which  was  alive  when  cut  down. 
Dr.  Beesley  counted  ten  hundred  and  eighty  in  a  stump; 
and  J.  Diverty  found  one  thousand  in  a  log  dug  up  out  of 
the  swamp  earth.  *  *  *  *  The  average  size  of  the 
old  trees  was  from  two  to  three  feet  in  diameter;  those  of 
four,  five  and  six,  and  even  seven  feet,  were  found,  but 
rarely."  The  above  refers  exclusively  to  the  white  cedar 
( Chamsecyparis  thyoides  ) . 

The  late  Prof.  Cook  further  remarks :  "Trunks  of  trees 
are  found  buried  at  all  depths  beneath  the  surface,  quite 
down  to  the  gravel.  *  *  *  *  Tree  after  tree,  from 
two  hundred  to  one  thousand  years  old,  may  be  found  lying 
crossed,  one  under  the  other,  in  every  imaginable  direction." 

This  interesting  condition  has  a  distinct  bearing  on  the 
archaeology  of  the  same  region.  The  gravel  or  hard  pan 
proves  to  have  been  the  surface  when  man  using  only  (?) 
argillite  implements  was  the  coast  dweller  of  what  is  now 
New  Jersey.  That  is,  argillite  of  undoubted  artificial 
shaping;  rude  yet  not  questionable  as  to  being  designed 
and  not  fortuitous,  has  been  collected,  where  no  trace  of  the 


'Cook:  Geology  of  New  Jersey,  1868,  p.  356. 


52 

Indian,  the  aboriginal  potter,  has  been  discovered.  Even 
if  mere  chips  of  argillite  had  been  found  at  this  horizon,  it 
would  have  been  significant,  for  here  the  rock  is  not  found, 
the  drift  not  reaching  across  the  State  but  only  down  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware.  Such  specimens  as  I  have  seen 
were  identical  in  all  respects  with  those  of  the  sands  that 
underlie  the  present  surface  soil  in  the  immediate  valley  of 
the  Delaware  river.1  The  results  of  exploration  under 
favorable  circumstances  clearly  indicate,  at  least  to  the 
writer's  unqualified  satisfaction,  that  when  this  now  buried 
forest  was  flourishing,  and  long  centuries  before  the  giant 
cedar  of  Wildwood  was  a  sapling,  and  possibly  when  Five 
Mile  Beach  was  a  part  of  the  main  land,  the  historic  Indian 
had  not  developed  here  or  migrated  from  elsewhere,  but 
man  was  present,  and  possibly  so  long  ago  that  he  did  not 
witness  even  the  beginning  of  this,  "the  last  of  a  succession 
of  such  changes  which  have  left  their  permanent  marks 
upon  this  portion  of  the  State;  and  all  of  them  only  carry 
us  back  through  the  last,  and  what  has  usually  been  con 
sidered  the  most  insignificant,  of  all  the  periods  of  geo 
logical  time."2 

Idle,  indeed,  is  all  attempt  to  estimate  in  years  such  a 
sequence  of  event.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to  indicate 
how  long  these  forests  flourished  before  the  day  of  their 
destiny  dawned.  Forest  may  have  succeeded  forest,  as  they 
have  done  since,  and  the  beginning  of  the  decline  may  have 
dated  centuries  before  the  destruction  was  complete.  The 
subsidence,  whether  ten,  twenty  or  more  feet,  and  the  depth 
is  not  uniform,  can  never  be  shown  to  have  been  without  in 
termission,  and  if  apparently  of  measurable  time  within  the 
historic  period,  it  does  not  indicate  that  at  the  beginning 
it  was  not  very  gradual  and  less  than  the  estimated  quarter 


^rchseologia  Nova  Caesarea,  II.,  p.  28. 
'Cook :  Geology  of  New  Jersey,  1868,  p.  357. 


53 

of  an  inch  a  year.  As  Dr.  Cook  has  well  said,  when  view 
ing  this  sunken  forest  in  Cape  May,  "we  soon  come  to 
reckon  the  time  of  its  accumulation  by  hundreds,  or  even 
thousands  of  years." 

Then  came  the  Indian  upon  the  scene.  The  shell-heaps 
tell  his  story,  but  no  hint  of  a  date  is  discoverable.  They 
witnessed  many  a  change.  "There  is  a  tradition,"  writes 
Dr.  Cook,1  "derived  from  the  Indians  that  trees  formerly 
grew  on  the  bank  which  is  now  Fishing  Creek  shoal." 
They  saw  the  land  of  their  forefathers  disappear;  that  we 
know ;  and  their  own  canoes  floated  where  their  fathers  had 
chased  the  deer.  Doubtless,  their  traditions  covered  many 
a  change  of  which  no  trace  is  left,  and  lacking  this,  how 
ever  earnestly  we  strive  to  rebuild  the  past,  we  all  too  likely 
wander  wide  of  the  mark,  but  the  deeply-buried  argillite 
and  the  potsherd  and  jasper  of  the  shell-heaps  do  not  lead 
us  astray. 

Still,  it  is  hopeless  to  convey  to  printed  pages  the  im 
pressions  that  the  archaeologist  afield  receives.  The  palaeon 
tologist  is  more  fortunate.  The  bones  that  he  sets  up  in  the 
museum:  case  excites  wonder,  but  never  doubt.  But  never 
a  trace  of  man's  antiquity  is  exhibited  but  it  excites  a 
doubt  and  fails  to  interest.  The  truth  is,  the  traces  of 
other  peoples  of  other  days  must  be  seen  where  these  people 
left  them.  Such  objects  speak  to  the  individual,  but  not 
in  a  communicable  way.  Language  is  limited.  It  gives 
names  to  objects,  but  fails  when  attempting  to  repeat  all 
that  these  objects  suggest,  and  most  unfortunately,  when 
removed,  the  greater  part  of  all  they  .stood  for  disappears. 
The  obelisk  in  Central  Park  tells  no  story.  When  first 
erected  it  was  as  eloquent  as  it  now  is  mute.  That  a 
forest,  as  it  was  slowly  buried,  buried  traces  of  a  race  of 
men  older  than  itself  is  a  startling  assertion,  but  in  those 


'Cook :  1.  c.,  p.  346. 


54 

rudely  chipped  flakes  of  argillite  rests  the  fact.  How  vain, 
then,  to  deal  with  numbers  when  considering-  the  lapse  of 
time  twixt  the  first  flowering  of  these  old-time  trees  and 
the  fall  of  the  last  monarch  of  a  pre-historic  forest.  Prof. 
McGee  may  well  say  i1 

"The  time  has  not  yet  come  for  fixing  the  date  of  man's 
appearance  on  the  Western  Hemisphere  in  terms  of  geo 
logic  periods,  still  less  in  terms  of  years.  The  researches 
of  Cook,  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  banana  and  other  plants  were  cultivated  in  America 
before  they  passed  to  the  Orient,  and  suggest  that  Easter 
Island  may  have  been  a  way  station  between  Polynesia 
and  our  southern  continent,  while  the  researches  of  Bo<as 
and  others  in  the  Jesup  North  Pacific  expeditions  indicate 
that  traditions  have  migrated  from  America  to  Asia;  and 
these  indications  suggest  a  high  antiquity  for  the  red  race." 

This  for  the  "red  race,"  the  pre-historic  and  historic 
Indian,  but  what  of  his  forerunner? 

The  claim  that  he  is  a  myth,  it  appears  to  me,  has  not 
been  sustained.  Only  by  violation  of  all  rules  of  evidence 
can  every  trace  of  man  in  New  Jersey  be  referred  to  the 
Indian.  In  the  valley  of  the  Delaware,  along  the  Atlantic 
coast  and  over  the  intervening  land,  there  are  abundant 
evidences  of  man's  presence  at  a  date  too  remote  to  be  ex 
pressed  in  figures.  It  is  where  we  must  deal  with  time 
relative  and  not  time  absolute;  nor  are  we  dealing  neces 
sarily  with  one  and  the  same  people. 

MORTUARY  CUSTOMS. 

When  Samuel  Smith,  in  1765,  published  his  "History 
of  New  Jersey,"  he  did  not  state,  in  his  preface,  wherefrom 
was  derived  whatsoever  he  had  to  say  of  the  Indians,  ex- 


Communication  to  New  York  Herald,  1907. 


55 

cept  such  matters  as  were  then  historical  and  of  compara 
tively  recent  occurrence.  He  gives  us  a  plain  statement  that 
evidently  was  wholly  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  which  no 
later  writer  has  had  reason  to  dispute.  Certainly,  archaeol 
ogical  investigation,  unknown  in  his  day,  has  thrown  no 
doubt  upon  the  substantial  accuracy  of  what  he  records. 

On  page  137  of  his  work,1  we  find:  "It  was  customary 
with  the  Indians  of  West  Jersey,  when  they  buried  their 
dead,  to  put  family  utensils,  bows  and  arrows,  and  some 
times  money  (wampum)  into  the  grave  with  them  as  tokens 
of  their  affection.  When  a  person  of  note  died  far  from 
the  place  of  his  own  residence  they  would  carry  his  bones 
to  be  buried  there ;  they  washed  and  perfumed  the  dead, 
painted  the  face  and  followed  singly;  left  the  dead  in  a  sit 
ting  posture  and  covered  the  grave  pyramidically :  They 
were  very  curious  in  preserving  and  repairing  the  graves 
of  their  dead." 

It  is  needless  to  remark  that  all  such  carefully  tended 
graves  have  long  since  disappeared.  The  surface  of  the 
ground  has  renewed  its  orignal  appearance  and  only  by 
chance  do  we  discover  what  little  remains  of  these  elaborate 
interments.  The  skeletons  are  no  longer  intact.  Discolored 
earth  and  whatsoever  proved  imperishable  among  the 
"tokens  of  affection,"  as  pottery,  wrought  jasper  and 
polished  stone,  now  alone  indicate  many  a  grave.  The  point 
that  well  may  be  raised  is  that  the  disposition  of  the  body, 
as  to  posture  was  not  uniform.  Many  a  dead  Indian  was 
buried  lying  flat  upon  his  back.  In  the  present  flood  plain 
of  the  river  as  well  as  upon  the  higher  ground  that  skirts  its 
eastern  border,  the  graves  vary  in  this  respect.  It  might  be 
claimed  that  the  bones  became  displaced,  as  the  body 
decayed,  and  became  so  re-arranged  as  to  deceive  us  as  to 


History  of  The  Colony  of  Nova-Caesaria,  or  New  Jersey:  By 
Samuel  Smith,  Burlington,  in  New  Jersey:  MDCCLXV. 


56 

the  orignal  position  of  the  body,  but  this  is  shown  not  always 
to  have  been  the  case,  by  the  disposition  of  the  articles 
interred  at  the  same  time  and  the  correct  relative  position  of 
each  bone  of  the  skeleton.  No  confusion  in  this  respect  and 
uniformity  of  level  maintained.  A  trench  evidently,  and  not 
a  hole  had  been  dug. 

When  skeletons  are  found  in  what  we  may  call  grotesque 
positions,  it  does  not  mean  that  the  corpse  was  that  of  a 


Fig.  5.     Highest  development  of  Delaware  Indian  pottery  and  char 
acteristic  ornamentation. 

despised  person  and  that  the  body  was  thrown  head-foremost 
into  a  hole  and  covered  with  earth.  Such  skeletons  were 
evidently  in  a  sitting  posture  originally,  and  disturbance  due 
to  natural  causes  explains  all.  Imagination  has  no  place  in 
graveyard  investigations.  Difficult  as  it  is  to  deal  soberly 


57 

with  the  living,  the  dead  surely  .are  entitled  to  be  treated  as 
matters  of  fact  and  not  made  the  butt  of  a  riotous  fancy. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  much  depended  upon  the  promin 
ence  of  the  deceased,  as  to  the  details  of  burial,  but  more 
attention  is  likely  to  be  given  to  the  actual  funeral  cere 
monies,  and  now  the  grave  of  the  chief  and  that  of  the 
least  important  villager  are  indistinguishable.  The  fact, 
however,  that  such  traces  O'f  burials  as  occur  near  the  sur 
face,  and  are  discovered  by  chance  oftener  than  through 
efforts  in  such  direction,  are  not  necessarily  the  most  recent 


Fig,  6.     Clay  pipes  for  smoking  tobacco. 

interments,  for  we  know  nothing  of  the  changes  that  have 
taken  place  in  the  more  than  two  hundred  years  since  these 
graves  were  dug.  To  be  near  the  surface,  now,  does  not 
mean  that  the  body  was  not  deeply  interred,  i.  e.,  not  laid  on 
the  surface  and  earth  heaped  over  it.  Since  the  deforesting 
of  the  land,  the  surface  has  been  shifted  indefinitely.  Hill- 
locks  have  been  worn  away  and  hollows  filled,  and  we  have 
no  guide  to  the  conditions  at  the  time  of  inhumation. 
Whether  distinctly  within  the  undisturbed  sands  beneath  the 
present  soil  or  in  the  latter  is  of  more  importance,  but 
nothing  points  to  comparative  antiquity  except  where  there 


is  distinct  stratification  above  the  body.  Unless  this  process 
of  stratification  is  continuously  in  operation  and  may  be  but 
a  matter  of  yesterday,  the  remains  found  beneath  well 
defined  layers  of  sand  of  different  texture  must  be  of  great 
significance  in  its  bearing  on  the  general  question  of 
antiquity.  The  degree  of  preservation  of  a  skeleton  de 
pends  wholly  upon  the  character  of  the  soil  immediately 
surrounding  it,  and  so  many  an  Indian  interment  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  may  be  now  little  more  than 
dust,  while  one  of  twice  that  lapse  of  time  may  be  fairly  well 


Fig.  7.     Potsherd  with  unusual  ornamentation. 


Fig.  8.     Potsherd  with  unusual   ornamentation. 

preserved.  In  fact,  the  disposition  of  pottery  and  imple 
ments  in  the  ground  are  best  explained  as  having  been  in 
tentionally  associated  with  a  body,  every  trace  of  which  has 
absolutely  vanished.  It  is  this  that  suggests  how  very  long 
ago,  the  Indian  began  burying  his  dead,  in  certain  localities. 
The  abundance  of  relics  is  not  as  popularly  supposed  indica 
tive  of  a  village  site,  but  of  a  cemetery. 

That  the   perishable  belongings   of   the   deceased   were 
destroyed  by  fire,  and  animals  ordinarily  used  as  food  were 


59 

sacrificed,  and  the  accumulated  ashes  thrown  in  the  grave 
before  filling-  it,  is  apparent,  but  all  this  ceremony  concerned 
the  living-  far  more  than  it  referred  to  the  dead.  It  had 
no*  special  significance,  for  the  impression  that  the  "spirit" 
of  the  departed  required  the  "shade"  of  his  personal  effects 
in  "happy  hunting  grounds"  was  never  an  Indian  concept, 
but  the  wild  conjecture  of  over-zealous  proselyters,  whose 
imagination  ran  away  with  them. 

As  a  whole,  the  burial  customs  of  the  Indians  of  New 
Jersey,  if  we  may  judge  of  all  by  what  we  find  in  the  valley 
of  the  Delaware,  are  without  interest  so  far  as  throwing 
light  upon  the  lives  of  these  people.  That  there  was  not 
uniformity  in  the  burial  custom  is  about  our  most  important 
fact,  and  it  has  not  as  yet  proved  of  the  slightest  value. 
Choice  of  location  would  seem  natural  and  apparently  it  was 
sometimes  exercised  but  by  no  means  invariably.  The 
present  open  field,  the  still  undrained  marsh,  the  sand  dune ; 
wherever,  in  fact,  a  wigwam  might  have  been  erected,  there 
a  grave  often  proves  to-  be.  The  death  of  the  inmate  and 
the  burial  of  the  body  took  place  often  on  the  same  spot. 
The  grave  was  dug,  the  body  buried  and  the  wigwam 
burned ;  this  is  the  whole  story. 

In  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Indian's  permanent 
towns,  and  there  were  many  such  in  New  Jersey,  naturally 
there  would  be  a  general  place  of  burial.  Such  cemeteries, 
in  early  Colonial  days,  \vere  respected,  but  the  increased 
demand  for  land  soon  resulted  in  encroachment  upon  their 
boundaries  and  now  they  are  obliterated.  An  occasional 
relic  is  turned  up  by  the  plow  or  perhaps  a  skull,  but  of  the 
past  and  all  this  relic  and  this  skull  really  signify,  who  shall 
say?  "Lost  is  lost,  and  gone  is  gone  forever." 

That  the  Indian,  however,  was  not  devoid  of  all  sentiment 
is  apparent  from  what  has  been  quoted  from  Samuel  Smith, 
and  near  a  century  later  we  find  it  reported  by  Barber  and 


6o 

Howe,1  they  in  turn  quoting  from  an  unnamed  author, 
that  on  the  bank  of  the  Rancocus  creek,  and  not  far  from 
the  Delaware  river,  there  was  a  "tumulus  formed  by  the 
graves  o<f  the  Indians,  There  they  used  to  be  brought  in 
wickers  on  men's  shoulders,  and  were  interred  in  sitting 
postures,  surrounded  and  defended  by  upright  wickers." 


Fig.  p.     Axe,  Celt  and  Gouge  of  Delaware  Indians. 

The  occurrence  of  burial  mounds  in  New  Jersey  have  been 
frequently  reported,  but  in  every  instance  of  which  I  have 
knowledge,  it  was  a  natural  hillock  or  out-reaching  ridge, 
with  sufficient  clay  at  its  base  to  preserve  it  against  the  wear 
and  tear  of  the  elements.  Such  a  feature  in  a  landscape 


Historical  Collections  of  New  Jersey:  Barber  and  Howe,  2nd  Ed., 
1856,  p.  122. 


6i 

would  not  escape  an  Indian's  notice,  and  its  utilization  as  a 
burial  place  would  be  a  very  apt  suggestion,  but  that  a 
tumulus  was  ever  deliberately  built  is  open  to  question,  al 
though  earthworks  for  defense  are  recorded  by  those  who 
had  seen  them  and  questioned  the  Indians  as  to  their  origin 
and  purport.  It  can  be  said  safely  that  the  Delaware  In 
dians  were  in  no  sense  mound-builders,  but  appear  occas 
ionally  to  have  been  mound-dwellers. 

An  examination  of  one  such  natural  hillock  gave  evidence 
that  it  had  been  palisaded  near  the  top  and  a  house  erected 


Fig.  10.     Club-head  and  ornaments  of  Delaware  Indians. 

within  the  enclosure.  The  earth  showed  the  effect  of  long 
continued  fire  in  one  limited  spot.  No  handiwork  of  the 
occupants  was  found  except  innumerable  potsherds.  The 
place  appeared  to  have  been  burnt  and  never  re-occupied, 
and  no  trace  of  a  burial  could  be  found.  It  is  probable  that 
a  great  many  reported  "mounds"  were  such  places  as  I  have 
described,  and  yet  the  counterfact  of  such  burial  places  as 
that  upon  the  Rancocus  creek  is  not  to  be  overlooked.  That 


62 

Indians  should  desire  to  be  buried  on  its  banks  is  not  strange. 
The  whole  valley  of  the  stream  was  almost  one  continuous 
village.  Nowhere,  except  in  the  irreclaimable  marsh,  are 
relics  of  the  aborigines  wanting.  The  sands  are  full  of 
them.  Objects  of  argillite  are  more  abundant  than  those 
of  jasper  and  quartz,  and  are  so  mingled  with  pottery  and 
implements  of  known  Indian  manufacture  that  no  distinc 
tion  can  be  drawn  between  later  Indians  and  the  "argillite" 
man,  unless  indeed  there  is  some  significance,  in  fact,  that  in 
some  areas  and  deeply  buried  in  sand,  are  rude  argillite 
knives  and  points  and  an  entire  absence  of  pottery. 

The  single  feature  of  archaeological  interest  in  connection 
with  the  mortuary  customs  O'f  the  Indians  of  the  Delaware 
valley  is  that  of  the  vast  numbers  of  burials  that  have  taken 
place.  Varied,  as  a  whole,  and  the  conditions  of  hundreds 
having  been  noted,  it  is  evident  that  what  are  now  to  be 
traced  somewhat  vaguely  or  exhumed  entire  and  in  excel 
lent  preservation,  are  but  a  trifling  fraction  of  the  unnum 
bered  host  that  have  literally  turned  to  dust,  if  what  are 
looked  upon  as  "inferential  interments"  are  such,  or  those 
indicated  by  the  position  of  objects  that  suggest  their  hav 
ing  been  placed  where  found  when  a  body  was  laid  away. 
No  single  grave,  when  brought  to  light,  pointed  to  a  remote 
antiquity.  It  was  again  an  instance  of  that  general  im 
pression  derived  from  years  of  familiarity  with  the  condi 
tions  as  a  whole ;  an  impression  that  must  be  derived  directly 
from  the  field,  and  cannot  be  transmitted  by  pen,  pencil  or 
word  of  mouth. 

Sepulture  was  simple.  It  was  not  a  feature  of  the  people's 
career  that  was  at  all  prominent.  It  was  an  unavoidable 
necessity  that  was  never  glorified  with  elaborate  ceremony. 
Therein  their  wisdom  exceeded  that  of  their  successors. 
Whatever  monuments  they  might  have  raised  were  painted 
wooden  posts  that  have  long  since  disappeared,  and  there 


63 

were  no  stones  set  up  to  mark  the  last  resting-  place  of  king, 
chief,  priest  or  prophet. 

If  no  single  graves  of  Indians  bear  out  the  general  con 
tention  of  the  antiquity  of  these  people,  what  of  those  traces 
of  the  human  skeleton  which  are  found  singly;  a  skull,  it 
may  be,  a  tooth,  or  some  one  single  bone,  or  even  a  water- 
worn  fragment  of  a  bone?  To  refer  all  such  accidental  finds 
to  some  disturbed  Indian  burial  may  seem  very  rational, 
and  the  only  natural  explanation,  but  not  always  is  such 
apparently  obvious  conclusion  warranted.  The  conditions 
under  which  an  object  is  found  is  of  more  importance  than 
the  character  of  the  object  itself. 

When  modern  crockery,  coins  and  handiwork  generally 
of  the  European  is  found  in  glacial  gravel,  in  stratified 
sands,  and  associated  with  relics  of  the  Indian;  when  the 
surface  of  the  river's  valley  to  the  depth  of  twenty  feet  or 
more  shows  a  promiscuous  gathering  of  the  belongings  of 
the  aborigine  and  early  settler  and  bones  of  the  mastodon, 
peccary  and  giant  beaver,  then  it  will  be  time  to  set  aside 
the  ''law''  as  I  have  laid  it  clown,  that  of  the  significance  of 
circumstance.  This  stand  of  mine  may  not  be  in  accordance 
with  the  canons  of  Museum  curators  or  of  Bureau  admin 
istration,  but  it  accords  with  the  far  older  canons  of  com 
mon  sense.  Such  traces  of  the  human  skeleton  do  occa 
sionally  occur,  and  the  condition  of  the  bone  itself  as  well 
as  the  circumstances  of  occurrence  often  justify  the  ascrip 
tion  of  an  antiquity  greater  than  an  Indian  grave. 

An  example  of  such  single  finds  is  that  of  a  fragment  of 
a  frontal  bone,  at  a  depth  of  three  feet,  nine  inches,  in  com 
pact  Columbia  gravel.  The  locality  is  one  of  considerable 
elevation  above  the  Trenton  deposit  of  gravel  and  almost  a 
mile  inland  from  the  river.  Looking  at  a  perpendicular 
escarpment  of  this  preglacial  deposit,  I  noticed  its  uniform 
surface  was  disturbed  by  a  curved  line  of  yellowish  material, 


64 

and  closer  examination  brought  to  light  the  bone  in  ques 
tion.1  Since  its  discovery  I  have  determined  more  than 
one  fact  of  importance.  At  the  time  I  made  my  measure 
ment  of  the  depth  at  which  the  specimen  occurred,  I  was 
not  aware  that  the  surface  of  the  field  had  been  removed 
to  a  depth  of  two<  feet  of  the  Columbia  gravel  and  all  of 
the  surface  or  vegetation-sustaining  soil,  which  was  prob 
ably  a  foot  in  depth.  Now,  taking  this  into'  consideration, 
the  bone  was  really  almost  six  feet  in  the  compact  ferru 
ginous  sands  and  small  quartzite  pebbles  that  constitute 
here  the  so-called  Columbia  gravel  deposit.  While  there 
was  noi  distinct  stratification,  as  of  different  materials  and 
as  we  find  it  even  in  the  Trenton  gravel,  there  was  a  com 
pactness  so  marked  that  it  seemed  next  to  being  a  really 
solid  sandstone;  so>  compact  that  the  preservation  and  ex 
traction  of  the  bone  was  one  of  great  difficulty.  Hence,  all 
possibility  of  the  bone  being  an  intrusive  object  was  elimi 
nated.  These  facts,  except  that  of  precise  depth,  were  for 
warded  with  the  specimen  to  the  museum  where  it  is  now 
preserved,  but  neither  statement  nor  specimen  were  accorded 
even  the  most  perfunctory  attention. 

Later  the  specimen  was  examined  by  Dr.  Hrdlicka2  and 
his  single  comment  is  that  it  gives  no  indication  of  its  racial 
character.  There  is  a  crumb  of  comfort  here,  in  that  he 
does  not  show  that  that  it  is  necessarily  Indian,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  it  was  found  does  demonstrate 
either  that  the  Indian  is  vastly  older  than  has  hitherto  been 
supposed  or  that  it  is  a  portion  of  a  skull  of  that  pre-Indian 
race,  the  existence  of  which  Dr.  Hrdlicka  labors  so  strenu 
ously  to>  disprove. 


'Now  in  Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

2The  Crania  of  Trenton,  New  Jersey,  and  their  Bearing  upon  the 
Antiquity  of  Man  in  that  Region.  By  Ales  Hrdlicka,  Amer.  Mus.  of 
Nat.  Hist.,  Vol.  XVI.,  pp.  23-62.  New  York,  1902. 


65 

In  other  words,  if  this  fragmentary,  frontal  bone  of  a 
human  being  was  a  fragment  of  the  skeleton  of  an  extinct 
mammal  or  of  one  no  longer  living  in  New  Jersey,  its 
acceptance  as  added  proof  of  the  one-time  existence  of  such 
animal  here  would  be  a  matter  of  course  and  excite  no  com 
ment ;  but  to  hint  at  "fossil"  man  in  New  Jersey  disturbs 
the  equanimity  of  the  Museums  and  Bureaus,  and  peace  of 
mind  is  secured  at  the  expense  of  truth.  All  pertaining  to 
humanity  that  by  position  in  the  earth  is  seemingly  old, 
must  necessarily  be  intrusive,  and  so,  modern.  This  is  the 
official  dictum  until  the  glory  of  undisputed  discovery  is  all 
their  own. 

This  frontal  bone,  as  I  discovered  it  thirteen  years  ago, 
confirms  to  my  mind,  as  no  other  discovery  of  others  or  by 
myself  ever  did,  the  antiquity  of  man  in  the  valley  of  the 
Delaware  and,  too,  of  the  existence  of  that  pre-Indian 
people  whom  I  have  called  "Argillite  Man." 

THE    AMERICAN    SAVAGE. 

It  is  well  known  how  rapidly  and  ineffaceably  affected  an 
inferior  race  becomes  when  contact  with  superiority  is 
established.  The  unfortunate  weakness  of  all  mankind  to 
reach  beyond  the  limits  set  by  Nature  leads  the  savage  to 
emulate  all  the  vices  of  those  more  advanced  in  culture,  and 
so  become  less  than  their  former  selves  and  widen  the  gulf 
between  the  two,  as  races.  This  wras  conspicuously  true  in 
North  America  promptly  after  the  continent  became  known 
to  Europe,  when  its  fanatical,  covetous  and  hypocritical 
hordes  raided  practically  the  entire  Atlantic  coast.  It  was 
really  savage  pitted  against  savage,  the  difference  being  that 
one  phase  of  the  savagery  was  honest ;  the  other,  not  so. 

It  is  with  this  pre-European-contact  savage,  the  "Indian" 
that  was  the  product  of  the  country  as  much  as  are  its  for- 

5 


66 

ests  and  the  fauna  that  wanders  through  them,  that  the 
archaeologist  is  concerned;  the  savage  that  in  1621  inveigled 
the  Dutch  colonists  brought  hither  by  Cornelius  Jacobse 
Mey,  to  bring  their  boat  into  Cooper's  creek,  and  there  mur 
dered  every  soul  on  board.  Later  the  real  savage  was  oc 
casionally  seen  when  invasion  of  their  homes  was  resisted, 
but  the  redskin  with  a  rifle  is  not  the  original  savage  with 
his  bow.  The  iron  tomahawk  excites  no  interest,  but  the 
grooved  stone  axe  never  ceases  to  be  suggestive.  The  Indian 
of  history  bears  much  the  relation  to  the  savage  of  pre-his- 
tory  that  horses,  cattle  and  sheep  bear  toi  their  wild  progeni 
tors. 

No  problem  concerning  these  people  has  been  so  vigor 
ously  discussed,  and  all  else,  in  fact,  has  been  too  much  lost 
sight  of,  in  the  endeavor  to  determine  the  origin  of  this 
so-called  and  mis-called  Indian.  I  am  fully  convinced,  after 
years  of  investigation,  not  of  their  origin,  but  oi  their  activi 
ties  when  de  facto>  inhabitants  of  the  region,  that  much 
obscurity  would  have  been  avoided  had  tradition,  as  it  was 
received  by  the  missionaries,  been  treated  as  such,  and  not 
as  history,  as  we  distinguish  between  the  two,  and  so  the 
element  of  time  not  allowed  to  sway  their  thoughts  in  one 
direction  or  another. 

Those  who,  like  Heckewelder,  accepted  tradition  as  veri 
table  and  linked  it  to  ordinary  time  estimate  as  he  might 
the  history  of  his  own  country,  were,  of  course,  sincere  in 
their  conclusions,  but  sincerity  does  not  affect  facts  and 
make  error  less  erroneous.  These  pioneers  in  Indian  his 
tory  were  not  archaeologists.  They  knew  nothing  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  earth  and  of  man.  They  were  fitted  and 
fortunate  in  their  opportunity  to  record  tradition,  but  we, 
to-day,  are  not  called  upon  to  place  the  same  value  upon  it 
as  they  did. 


67 

The  valley  of  the  Delaware,  as  we  have  already  seen,1 
comes  well  within  the  scope  of  the  Indians'  traditional  his 
tory.  From  it  it  would  appear  that  of  all  the  North  Ameri 
can  Continent  so  vast  an  area  as  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware  and  Maryland  and  southern  New  York  were  un 
known  to  the  continent's  native  race  for  untold  centuries, 
and  the  very  last  and  very  recently  invaded  and  occupied. 
The  stone  implements  found  in  the  single  valley  of  the  Dela 
ware  refute  this  and  bear  counter-testimony  wherever  found, 
and  as  one  flint  flake  deeply  buried  bears  testimony  that  can 
not  be  shaken,  what  of  this  wavering,  uncertain,  vague  prat 
tle  of  old  men  when  the  two-  conflict?  Safety  lies  in  the 
testimony  of  Nature's  records,  while  lies  rest  all  too  safely 
on  the  tongues  of  men. 

Prof.  N.  H.  Winchell2  has  recently  published  an  instruc 
tive  and  delightful  essay  on  the  "Aborigines  of  Minnesota," 
and  as  his  studies  have  carried  him  far  beyond  the  confines 
of  that  State,  I  take  advantage  of  his  researches  so  far  as 
to  quote  in  part  his  reference  to  the  Lenni  Lenape  and 
Heckewelder's  history  (or  traditions)  of  them. 

Prof.  Winchell  prefaces  his  article,  as  follows,  and  this 
succinct  statement  of  archaeology  to  date  surely  renders  it 
highly  improbable  that  the  valley  of  the  Delaware  was  "out 
in  the  cold"  until  some  four  or  five  hundred  years  ago. 

"In  order  to  clear  the  field  at  the  outset  by  the  removal 
of  any  obstacles  that  we  may  have  inherited  from  earlier 
conceptions  of  the  aborigines,  it  will  be  well  to  repeat  some 
of  the  important  results  that  have  been  reached  within  re 
cent  years,  viz. : 

"i.  The  origin  of  the  ancestors  of  the  Indians  was  so  re 
mote  that  nothing  yet  discovered  indicates  its  date  or  the 
source  from  which  they  came. 


'Archseologia  Nova  Caesarea,  II.,  p.  54. 

2The    Prehistoric    Aborigines    of    Minnesota    and    their    Migrations. 
By  N.  H.  Winchell.     Popular  Science  Monthly,  Sept.,  1908. 


68 

"2.  There  are  between  fifty  and  sixty  Indian  stock  lan 
guages,  some  of  which  are  as  distantly  related  as  the  lan 
guages  of  the  various  Aryan  nations,  but  most  of  which  are 
as  distinct  as  the  English  from  the  Semitic. 

"3.  This  shows  that  the  aborigines,  if  they  came  at  all 
to  America,  must  have  come  from  a  great  many  directions, 
or  that  their  coming  was  so  remote  that  they  must  have  de 
veloped  these  differences  amongst  themselves  by  long 
periods  of  isolated  residence  in  North  America. 

"4.  The  Indian  stock  languages  can  not  be  connected, 
at  least  have  not  been  connected  as  yet,  with  any  convincing 
bond  of  relationship,  with  either  European  or  Asiatic  lan 
guages.  The  Eskimo  are  here  not  included,  as  that  stock 
ranges  from  Greenland  through  North  America  into  Siberia. 

"5.  The  aborigines,  therefore,  are  indigenous  to  the  soil 
of  America  in  the  same  sense  that  the  Mongolian  and  Cau 
casian  are  indigenous  in  the  lands  of  the  Eastern  continent." 

Such  being  the  conditions  as  applied  to  the  entire  conti 
nent,  it  is  necessary  to  look  cautiously  at  tradition  concern 
ing  a  limited  area  which  is  plainly  not  in  accord  with  such 
established  general  conclusions,  and  when,  too,  the  con 
ditions  of  that  limited  area  are  flatly  contradictory  so-  far 
as  the  tradition  is  concerned.  The  original  peopling  of  the 
continent  was  so  remote  that  every  vestige  of  it  has  disap 
peared  and  the  development  of  the  Indian  as  such  is  one  of 
this  continent  and  reflects  nothing  of  any  other  continental 
area.  Here,  then,  is  allowed  the  time  necessary  for  all  that 
I  have  endeavored  to  prove  with  reference  to  the  valley  of 
the  Delaware. 

That  portion  of  the  traditions  of  the  Lenni  Lenape,  as 
recorded  by  Heckwelder,  that  is  of  foremost  interest  and  of 
marked  significance  is  to  when  these  people  did  finally 
reach  the  land  east  of  the  Alleghanies,  it  was  not  the  un 
opposed  entrance  upon  an  uninhabited  country.  They  had 


69 

to  fight  their  way.  If  this  is  true,  and  it  is  at  least  reason 
able,  then  what  of  the  pre-Lenapean  folk  who  were  in  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  and  westward  to  the  Alleghanies  and 
eastward  to  the  Atlantic  ocean? 

Concerning  traditions  in  general,  Prof.  Winchell  remarks  : 

"There  are  many  traditions  that  relate  to  the  migrations 
of  the  native  tribes  within  the  United  States.  I  will  call 
your  attention  to  but  two  of  them.  These  relate  to  the 
great  movements  that  are  here  discussed,  but  they  are  con 
firmed  by  several  others  that  supply  contributory  details, 
and  when  taken  all  together  their  force  amounts  almost  to 
as  great  a  body  of  evidence  as  if  the  events  were  a  matter  of 
history. 

"These  two  traditions  have  been  accepted  by  all  archaeolo 
gists  as  trustworthy  testimony,  as  far  as  the  Indians  could 
communicate  a  history  of  past  events.  The  only  differences 
of  opinion  that  have  appeared  pertain  to-  the  interpretation 
and  application  of  the  traditions  themselves. 

"One  of  these  two  traditions  recounts  the  hostile  incursion 
of  the  Lenni  Lenape,  an  Algonquin  tribe  or  group  of  tribes, 
into  the  region  west  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains,  their  con 
flict  with  the  "Tselaki,"  a  word  which  has  been  corrupted 
into  Cherokee,  and  with  the  Allegewi,  a  word  which  is  per 
petuated  in  the  term  Alleghany,  and  their  final  settlement, 
under  the  name  Delaware,  in  the  eastern  part  of  Pennsyl 
vania  and  in  New  Jersey,  together  with  some  further  migra 
tions  toward  the  east.  ****** 

"John  Heckewelder,  a  Moravian  missionary  with  the  Del 
aware  or  Lenni  Lenape  in  Pennsylvania,  gave  the  first 
printed  account  of  the  hostile  incursion  of  the  Lenni  Lenape 
against  the  Ohio  mound  builders.  It  is  published  in  Vol. 
XII.  of  the  memoirs  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  in  i8ii8.  He  took  it  from  the  relation  of  the  intelli 
gent  Indians.  With  some  abbreviation  it  is  as  follows : 


70 

"The  Lenni  Lenape  (according  to  traditions  handed 
down  to  them  by  their  ancestors)  resided  many  hundred 
years  ago  in  a  very  distant  country  in  the  western  part  of 
the  American  continent.  For  some  reason  they  determined 
on  migrating  to  the  eastward,  and  accordingly  set  out 
together  in  a  body.  After  a  long  journey,  and  with  many 
long  stops  on  the  way,  they  at  length  arrived  on  the 
Namaesi-sipu,  which  by  Mr.  Heckewelder  is  translated 
'Mississippi'  ****** 

"The  tradition  continues  further,  but  is  not  essential  to 
this  inquiry  except  so  far  as  it  shows  that  the  Lenape  finally 
spread  themselves  into  the  eastern  states,  establishing  new 
tribes,  and  into1  Virginia  and  Maryland,  and  states  that  these 
younger  offshoots  recognized  their  relationship  by  calling  the 
Lenape  their  grandfathers,  this  proving  a  confirmation  of 
the  recentness  of  the  southern  Algonquin  tribes." 

Who'  then,  it  may  be  asked,  were  these  Allegewi  ?  They 
proved  a  formidable  opponent  to<  the  progress  of  the  Algon 
quin  Lenni  Lenape,  according  to  their  own  showing  and  it  is 
not  probable  that  they  were  an  Algonquin  tribe  that  foreran 
the  Lenape  and  were  congregated  about  the  Alleghany 
Mountains  and  did  not  wander  far  away.  There  is  nowhere 
more  easy  traveling  and  fewer  obstacles  than  between  the 
Susquehanna  and  the  Delaware  rivers,  and  these  Allegewi, 
about  which  Heckewelder  found  much  to  record,  were  with 
out  doubt  actual  possessors  and  occupants  of  all  the  territory 
twixt  the  mountains  and  the  sea,  As  a  resident  people, 
long  established,  they  had  the  advantage  over  an  invading 
foe,  yet  in  the  end  they  were  overcome  and  either  were  anni 
hilated  or  absorbed.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they 
were  so  far  inferior  that  the  victors  should  not  have  enslaved 
their  women,  if  they  did  not  fraternize  with  the  men.  This 
as  it  may  be,  it  throws  much  light,  if  the  tradition  be  true, 
on  the  history  of  the  Delaware  valley.  Were  the  Allegewi 


71 

of  Heckewelder's  narrative  the  argillite  men  of  that  river 
and  of  all  the  country  westward  to  the  Susquehanna? 
This  is  the  whole  matter  in  a  nutshell.  The  condition  of  the 
valley,  as  exploration  has  abundantly  shown,  can  best  be 
explained  by  successive  occupation,  and  if  we  are  to  accept 
tradition,  then  this,  preserved  by  Heckewelder  accords  com 
pletely  with  the  testimony  of  the  traces  of  early  man  in  the 
valley.  Tradition,  verified  by  physical  conditions,  is  of  value 
equal  to  authentic  history. 

The  Allegewi,  brave  and  persistent,  fell  back  finally,  as 
the  Lenape  pressed  forward  and  wrested  the  land  from  their 
opponents,  the  prior  occupants,  who  were  doubtless  a  less 
advanced  people,  and  at  no  one  point  may  have  been  numer 
ically  as  strong;  a  people  content  with  the  advantages  that 
Nature  provided,  and  not  warlike  until  roused  by  the  in 
vader. 

Following  this  line  of  attempted  explanation,  we  have, 
then,  the  man  who  utilized  the  easily  wrought  argillite  in 
the  making  of  his  tools  and  whatsoever  he  required  for 
hunting  and  fishing,  and  it  may  be  many  a  simple  blade 
that  suggests  agriculture  may  have  been  made  and  used 
before  the  Indian  began  to'  raise  his  crops  of  maize,  melons 
and  beans;  the  man  whose  mentality  was  so  far  undevel 
oped  that  he  was  wholly  utilitarian  and  in  no  sense  esthetic ; 
a  man  in  whom  art  had  not  yet  blossomed  as  it  has  with  the 
Eskimo  and  had  with  the  Eskimo's  ancestor,  Pleistokene 
man.  This  pre-Indian  of  the  Delaware  valley  was  a  savage, 
indeed,  but  probably  a  powerful  one,  yet  leading  the  lazy  life 
of  a  well-fed  beast.  That  his  personal  possessions  were 
utilitarian  and  to  but  slight  degree,  if  at  all,  decorative  or 
symbolic,  is  inferred  from  the  fact  that  no  objects  of  the 
latter  character  have  been  found  that  could  reasonably  be 
referred  to  the  Indian's  predecessor  rather  than  to  the  In 
dian.  The  art  instinct  may,  however,  have  shown  itself  in 


etching  rather  than  sculpture,  for  large  blade-like  flakes 
of  argillite  of  no  very  definite  design,  but  clearly  artifically 
shaped,  have  been  collected  that  were  unmistakably  incised 
in  a  suggestive  way,  but  too  vaguely  to  determine  the  de 
sign.  These  incised  lines,  broken  and  often  weather-worn 


V 


Fig.  II.     Sandstone  Hoe,  perforated,  of  Delaware  Indians.     A  rare 
form. 

until  scarcely  traceable,  have  all  the  appearance  of  an  at 
tempt  at  ornamentation  of  the  stone  or  to  depict  some  special 
object.  But  all  is  as  yet  too  indefinite  to>  warrant  any  con 
clusion  being  drawn.  It  is  not  likely  this  argillite  man  was 
devoid  of  all  art,  but  then  we  are  dealing  with  the  almost 


73 

primitive  humanity  of  thousands  of  years  ago,  and  have 
scarcely  a  foothold  in  any  direction  save  that  of  the  single 
fact  of  his  one-time  existence.  Furthermore,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  by  many  authors,  time  and  time  again,  all  the 
stone  implements  that  are  now  found  are  not  necessarily 
referrible  to  the  historic  Indian.  As  well  assert  that  all 


Fig.  12.     Argillite  Hoe  of  Delaware  Indian.     Simplest  form  of  this 
implement. 

Colonial  furniture  and.  utensils  still  in  New  Jersey  are  of 
English  origin,  and  none  Dutch  or  Swedish,  when  we  do 
know  that  these  people  antedate  by  more  than  half  a  cen 
tury  the  English  in  the  Delaware  valley. 

It  is,  I  claim,  something  more  than  reasonable  conjecture, 
more  than  specious  argumentation,  that  the  argillite  objects, 


74 

considered  under  all  the  conditions  of  their  occurrence,  are 
older  as  a  class  than  those  of  jasper  and  quartz,  which  we 
know  were  fashioned  by  the  Indians.  It  is  not  necessary, 
as  has  been  done,  to  declare  them,  if  older,  to  be  simply  the 
earlier  workmanship  of  the  Indian  after  his  reaching  the 
region.  On  the  contrary,  I  claim  this  difference  in  age 
means  a  difference  in  origin,  and  that  enough  has  been  de 
termined  of  the  river  valley  as  a  whole,  and  of  the  eastward 
extension  of  the  land  to  the  sea,  to  assert  with  confidence 
that  the  argillite  man  was  not  a  potter,  or,  if  the  invading 
Lenape  shared  the  country  with  the  conquered  Allegewi, 
then  he  might  have  made  crude  attempts  at  shaping  and 
baking  clay  during  the  period  between  the  date  of  the  sub 
jection  until  their  disappearance  as  a  separate  people. 

Herein  we  have  a  sequence  of  event.  We  refer  to  a  time 
prior  to  the  Lenni  Lenape  in  the  Delaware  valley,  and  sub 
sequently  to  a  time  when  Arctic  conditions  prevailed  and 
man,  indistinguishable  from  Homo  palseolithicus,  of  Europe, 
was  here;  to  a  time  when  the  man  of  the  argillite  period  was 
in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  land,  and  then  to  the 
passing,  at  last,  of  America's  native  races  from  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  and  the  fateful  coming  of  the  European.  But 
how  futile  to  estimate  all  this  in  years !  The  Lenni  Lenape 
halted  many  a,  year  before  resuming  their  eastward  journey, 
but  who  shall  say  how  long  entrenched  in  their  threshholds 
were  the  Allegewi?  To  deal  in  numbers,  to  speculate  on 
the  lapse  o>f  years,  is  to  vitiate  archaeological  research.  Of 
itself,  whether  one  thousand  years  or  five  thousand,  means 
nothing.  It  is  an  unfortunate  tendency  that  should  be 
checked. 

The  same  is  true  of  what  we  know  collectively  of  natural 
phenomena,  especially  the  dawn  and  passing  of  geological 
epochs.  We  are  not  contented  with  what  we  do  know  and 
are  equal  to  ascertaining,  but  waste  our  strength  in  endeav- 


75 

oring  to  acquire  knowledge  of  the  unknowable.  That  the 
last  ice  epoch  was  a  well  defined  condition  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  but  it  is  hopeless  to  attempt  to  determine  its  duration, 
and  so,  too,  I  maintain,  of  the  period  of  its  decline  and 
final  disappearance.  Dr.  Winchell  believes  otherwise  in  re 
gard  to  the  latter.  He  states  : 

"i.  During  the  prevalence  of  the  last  ice-epoch  the  state 
of  Minnesota  was  covered  with  ice,  and  all  previous  inhabit 
ants,  whether  fauna  or  flora,  were  driven  southward  to  more 
congenial  climes. 

"2.  This  condition  ended  between  seven  and  eight  thou 
sand  years  ago.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  rehearse  the  in 
vestigations  on  which  that  result  is  based." 

Why  between  seven  and  eight  instead  of  eight  or  nine  or 
nine  or  ten  ?  Is  it  not  guesswork  at  the  best,  and  hazardous 
guessing  at  that  ?  Whatever  may  be  true  of  the  interior  of 
the  country,  it  took  a  great  deal  longer  than  seven  or  eight 
thousand  years  to  accomplish  all  that  has  taken  place  in  the 
valley  of  the  Delaware  since  man  first  stood  upon  the  banks 
of  this  ancient  river.  Much,  it  is  true,  can  happen  in  a 
thousand  years ;  much  did  happen  even  among  savage  people 
in  that  length  of  time,  but  a  thousand  years  in  geology  is 
about  equal  to  a  day  in  human  affairs.  Radical  changes 
even  among  the  most  advanced  people  of  to-day  are  not 
sudden.  The  spectacular  outbreaks  of  freaks  and  fools  do 
not  sweep  whole  communities  off  their  feet,  and  surely 
change  was  much  more  deliberate  in  the  condition  of  primi 
tive  and  nearly  primitive  man.  The  ice  that  drove  the 
people  of  Minnesota,  and  of  New  Jersey  as  well,  southward, 
was  a  long  time  in  accumulating,  and  when,  as  a  continental 
ice-sheet,  it  was  a  thing  of  the  past,  for  how  long  were  the 
glaciers  that  filled  the  immediate  river  valley  ?  I  know  noth 
ing  of  the  conditions  in  Minnesota,  but  there  was  such  a 
glacier  here,  filling  the  Delaware  gorge  from  the  Blue 


76 

Mountains  to  lower  hills,  many  miles  below.  What  con 
stitutes  the  ending  of  such  a  condition  as  the  glacial  epoch  ? 
Have  we  not  traces  of  it  still,  when  every  winter  the  river 
is  filled  with  ice,  and  it  has  happened  that  so  much  gathers 
that  spring  is  well  advanced  towards  summer  before  the  last 
of  it  has  disappeared.  Evidently  all  this  change  of  a  geologi 
cal  character  was  very  gradual.  We  have  not  a  vestige  of 
evidence  that  warrants  estimation  of  lapse  of  time  in  years. 
When  it  is  admitted  that  certain  events  occurred  between 
seven  and  eight  thousand  year  ago,  we  use  numbers  rashly 
and  convey  no  warranted  impression.  Time  was,  time  is 
and  time  forever  will  be.  This  we  have  reason  for  believing. 
Time  is  not  something  instituted,  and  so  it  can  be  said  there 
was  a  time  when  there  was  no  time.  It  is  but  a  convenient 
term  for  our  own  everyday  affairs  and  to  mark  an  epoch 
in  our  own  career.  Nature  knows  nothing  of  it.  It  is 
wholly  out  of  place  when  dealing  with  geology.  It  cribs, 
cabins  and  confines  the  work  both  of  geologist  and  archae 
ologist.  It  belittles  the  grandeur  of  research.  That  which 
the  student  desires  to  know  is  the  actual  sequence  of  event. 
This  informs.  This  makes  plain  the  record  of  the  past. 
Given  this  and  the  world  and  its  inhabitants  become  intelli 
gible.  Bring  in  the  arbitrary  element  of  time,  and  the  array 
of  facts  becomes  little  more  than  a  heap  of  rubbish. 

CONCLUSION. 

Dr.  Ales  Hrdlicka  in  a  recent  bulletin  (No.  33)  of  the 
Bureau  of  Ethnology,  clears  the  way  for  that  institution  to 
discover,  determine  and  set  at  rest  for  all  time  the  question 
of  the  antiquity  of  Man  in  North  America.  The  doctor  is 
particularly  savage  when  he  growls  at  the  valley  of  the 
Delaware,  but  the  river  still  continues  its  unruffled  flow,  and 
at  least  one  dweller  on  its  banks  pursues  the  even  tenor  of 
his  way. 


77 

If  we  accept  the  conclusions  as  set  forth  in  this  bulletin, 
notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  since  the 
establishment  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society  at  Wor 
cester,  Mass.,  early  in  the  last  century;  the  Smithsonian 
Institute  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  the  Peabody  Museum 
at  Cambridge,  more  than  forty  years  ago,  no  advance  has 
been  made  in  throwing  light  on  man's  origin  and  early 
career  on  this  continent.  Always  an  army  of  workers  in 
the  field,  and  an  army  of  observers  quick  to  preserve  the 
chance  discoveries  that  may  have  an  archaeological  signifi 
cance;  a  whole  library  of  supposed  archaeological  literature, 
and  yet  nothing  accomplished,  and  to-day  we  stand,  accord 
ing  to  Dr.  Hrdlicka,  as  ignorant  of  early  American  man  as 
did  our  forefathers  of  Jamestown,  Plymouth  Rock  and  the 
landing  of  William  Penn.  Not  encouraging,  surely,  but 
really  not  discouraging.  If  the  problem  has  been  solved, 
there  is  that  much  less  for  the  bureau  to  do.  That  it  and 
other  institutions  have  not  done  what  they  should  in  the 
all-important  line  of  tracing  man's  origin  on  this  continent 
is  evident.  The  results,  however  abundant  and  convincing, 
would  not.  satisfactorily  fill  a  museum  case  and  excite  the 
wonderment  of  the  gaping  crowd.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
research,  but  search  for  prettiness.  Pipes  and  pottery  from 
the  mounds,  but  the  simpler  handiwork  of  the  mound- 
builders  forebears  is  ignored.  Much  archaeological  research 
appears  to  have  been  on  the  principle  that  the  aboriginies  of 
this  country  had  no  ancestors,  and  yet  no  Indian  ever  talked 
long  without  referring  to  his  "grandfather,"  using  that 
term  not  literally  but  in  a  derivative  or  ancestral  sense.  It 
is  well  enough  to  be  conservative,  but  conservatism  can  go 
too  far  and  make  that  appear  false  which  is  really  true. 
This  is  strictly  so  with  reference  to  Dr.  Hrdlicka's  work  as 
set  forth  in  Bulletin  33  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology.  Noth 
ing  that  he  adversely  criticises  may  be  as  old  as  was  at  first 


78 

claimed,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  nothing  is  so  recent  as  he 
would  make  it.  The  eagle  may  not  be  above  the  clouds  but 
still  far  above  the  mountain's  top.  This  means  something 
in  the  matter  of  altitude.  The  "finds"  of  recent  date  may 
not  carry  us  back  to  pre-glacial  time.  America's  early  man 
may  never  have  witnessed  a  pliocene  sunrise,  but  this  does 
not  bring  all  stone  implements  and  fragmentary  crania  to 
so  recent  a  date  as  to  make  them  mere  objects  of  ethnological 
interest. 

Dr.  Hrdlicka  takes  the  ground  firmly  that  wherever  in 
North  America  sufficient  portions  of  the  human  skeleton 
have  been  unearthed  under  conditions  suggestive  of  an 
tiquity  to  warrant  comparison  with  like  parts  of  a  modern 
Indian,  the  result  has  been  to  bear  witness  against  what 
may  properly  be  called  "geological"  antiquity.  Without 
discussing  the  merits  of  the  value  of  such  comparisons, 
what  of  such  osseus  fragments  as  are  not  sufficient  for 
comparison  and  yet  are  unmistakably  human  It  certainly 
is  more  than  probable  that  no-  complete  skeleton  could 
escape  destruction  when  exposed  to  the  vicissitudes  of  even 
the  closing  activities  of  a  glacial  period.  Tossed  about  by 
floods ;  buried  in  gravel  and  unburied  only  to  be  re-buried, 
even  a  single  bone  could  scarcely  escape  the  destruction  of 
its  characteristics,  and  yet  even  so  fragile  an  object  as  a 
unio.  shell — a  single  valve — has  been  found  in  coarse  gravel 
so  far  from  the  surface  that  it  surely  was  no-  intrusive  object. 
Would  Dr.  Hrdlicka  presume  to  declare  it  was  specifically 
identical  with  the  living  mussels  found  in  the  nearest  creek  ? 
If  a  unio  is  found  and  in  the  same  horizon  a  fragment  of  a 
human  cranium,  which  was  the  case,  then  why  not  the  latter 
as  old  as  the  former?  Surely  an  argument  or  inference 
applicable  to  the  one  should  be  equally  applicable  to  the 
other. 

The  conclusion  reached  by  the  author  quoted  is  that  thus 
far  on  this  continent  no  human  bones  of  undisputed 


79 

"geological"  antiquity  are  known;  which  simply  means  that 
he  does  not  accept  the  fragments  that  have  been  found  under 
what  we  may  call  geological  conditions,  or  that  the  glacial 
activities  of  milleniums  ago  were  too>  recent  to  be  considered 
geological.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  proofs  offered 
are  not  sufficiently  weighty  to  convince  him  and  there  it 
rests,  but  until  he  or  others  explain  away  these  fragments 
of  bones  and  explain,  too,  far  more  logically  than  has  been 
done,  at  least  one  cranium1  from  the  Trenton  gravels,  the 
antiquity  of  man  in  North  America  is  still  an  open  question. 

Dr.  Hrdlicka  accepts  the  antiquity  of  man  in  the  world. 
He  is  not  opposed  to  the  view  that  this  early  man  dates  as 
far  back  as  the  tertiary  period,  which  is  going  back  two*  or 
three  hundred  thousand  years  ago,  so  it  is  estimated.  This 
is  like  going  out  into  the  fresh  air  after  confinement  in  a 
stuffy  room.  We  have  space  in  which  to  think.  Vision  is 
clearer.  Earth  takes  on  a  new  aspect.  All  that  we  know  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  New  World  was  peopled  from  the 
old,  but  to  what  extent  "great  multiplication  and  wide  dis 
tribution  of  the  human  species  and  the  development  of  cul 
ture,"  was  necessary  before  this  could  take  place,  we  do 
not  know.  When  the  world  was  sparsely  settled  and  man 
was  free  to  wander,  meeting  no  other  foes  than  wild  beasts, 
it  was  more  a  matter  of  physical  endurance  than  all  else, 
how  far  he  ultimately  found  himself  from  the  home  of  his 
fathers.  If  the  North  American  continent  was  unoccupied, 
can  we  not  imagine  the  Eskimo1  wandering  far  south  of 
the  St.  Lawrence? 

"A  wide  dispersion  of  the  race  over  the  earth  could 
hardly  have  taken  place  before  the  later  stages  of  the 
Ceno'zoic  era  (the  glacial  period)."  Why  not  earlier? 
The  geological  conditions  just  anterior  to  the  ice  age  appear 
to  have  been  in  every  way  desirable,  so  far  as  average  man 


Mirchaeologia  Nova  Csesarea,  II.,  p.  12. 


8o 

looks  upon  life's  fundamental  requirements,  and  as  he 
now  lives  under  the  conditions  of  extreme  cold  and  ex 
treme  heat,  whatever  the  climatic  conditions  of  pre-glacial 
time,  if  he  is  equal  to  them  now,  he  was  equal  to  them  then. 
Notwithstanding  such  a  bad  showing  as  it  appears  to  be 
to  Dr.  Hrdlicka,  he  does  not  look  upon  the  case  as  hope 
less.  He  considers  there  is  still  abundant  incentive  to  con 
tinued,  careful  and,  of  course,  scientifically  conducted  ex 
ploration  ;  all  of  which  means  that  the  explorations,  to  date, 
have  not  been  careful  or  scientifically  conducted.  Not  at 
all  complimentary,  nor  is  the  intimation  of  slip-shod  pro 
cedure  in  the  past  deserved.  So  far  as  the  Delaware  valley 
is  concerned,  certainly  Mr.  Volk's  labors  have  been  ex 
haustive,  painstaking,  intelligent  and  strictly  conscientious. 
From  what  I  know  of  it — he  is  my  informant — I  am  dis 
posed  to*  believe  that  he  was  sometimes  too  careful,  and  in 
several  instances  rejected  as  evidence  what  I  would  un 
hesitatingly  have  accepted,  especially  in  the  case  of  chipped 
stones,  which  I  believe  were  artificially  shaped,  but  of  which 
he  was  doubtful  and  so  discarded  as  of  natural  origin.1 
Nor  can  I  accept  the  conclusion  of  others,  that  no  statement 


*An  amusing  and  yet  irritating  instance  of  mis-placed  credit  occurred 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Internation  Congress  of  "Americanistes,"  in  New 
York,  in  October,  1902.  Following  an  exhibition  of  crania  and  chipped 
stones  from  the  Trenton  gravel,  which  Prof.  Putnam  desired  should 
"speak  for  themselves,"  Prof.  W  J  McGee  remarked :  "There  is  a 
strong  theory  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  the  glacial  man.  Now, 
looking  at  those  skulls  which,  by  Prof.  Putnam's  persistent  efforts 
have  been  recovered  from  the  Trenton  sands,  we  all  are  convinced 
of  the  proposition.  The  burden  of  proof  now  lies  on  the  other  side." 
So  far,  so  good,  but  Prof.  McGee  erred  in  attributing  to  Prof.  Putnam 
the  credit  of  the  "finds"  exhibited.  The  work  was  that  of  Mr.  Volk, 
who  was  not  directed,  influenced  or  instructed  by  any  one.  Whatever 
credit  is  due  is  due  to  Mr.  Volk.  For  Prof.  Putnam,  who  was  present, 
to  silently  accept  the  laudation  from  Prof.  McGee  is  about  in  line  with 
the  suppression  of  Mr.  Volk's  report  on  his,  to  that  time,  thirteen 
years  of  labor  in  the  field. 


8i 

except  that  of  an  "expert"  is  to  be  accepted  as  to  the  actual 
conditions  under  which  objects  have  been  asserted  to  have 
been  found.  The  practical  knowledge  of  a  contractor  whose 
business  it  is  to  excavate  for  cellars,  sewers  and  other  work 
necessitating  removal  of  large  quantities  o<f  sand,  gravel 
and  clay,  is  of  real  value  and  should  be  given  the  consid 
eration  which  it  deserves.  Hypercriticism  of  testimony  not 
"expert"  only  retards  progress  and  is  not  inexorably  de 
manded  by  science.  It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  there 
is  never  unanimity  among  geologists  when  glacial  and  pre- 
glacial  deposits  of  gravel  are  examined.  Such,  at  least,  has 
been  my  experience. 

That  evidence  of  early  man  in  America  would  be  wel 
comed  by  the  scientific  world  is  unquestioned,  and  Dr.  Hrd- 
licka  inclines  to  the  view  that  the  interior  of  the  continent  is 
more  likely  to  produce  it  than  anywhere  along  the  eastern 
or  western  seaboard,  but  why  the  Missouri  or  Mississippi 
drainage  areas  are  the  more  likely  to  reward  the  explorer 
than  are  the  coastal  plains  is  not  apparent. 

While  great  migratory  movements  have  followed  the 
courses  of  a  continent's  principal  rivers,  and  this  naturally, 
in  that  an  open  country  is  more  easily  travelled  than  a  forest 
or  a  waterless  desert,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  the 
attractions  of  a  river  valley  are  manifold  greater  along  the 
ocean.  The  ever  uppermost  question  of  food  supply  must 
not  be  lost  sight  of,  and  surely  the  ocean  offers  greater  fa 
cilities  for  obtaining  it  than  does  any  river.  We  do  not 
associate  navigation  even  in  its  rudest  form  with  primitive 
man,  but  if  the  ancient  river-side  dweller  had  his  boats,  we 
must  consider  that  the  Eskimo  had  his,  and  we  do  not  know 
when  he  invented  his  kayak.  The  probabilities  all  seem 
to  point  in  the  direction  of  early  man,  in  his  initial  migra 
tions,  keeping  within  sight  of  the  coast  and  gradually  ven 
turing  into  the  interior,  then  a  trackless  forest  teeming  with 
6 


82 

danger  really,  and  to  his  impressionable  mind  would  be  a 
fearsome  thing  to<  face,  except  when  many  by  a  concerted 
movement,  sought  little  by  little  to;  explore  the  streams  that 
flowed  to  the  sea. 

Again,  we  do  not,  save  in  the  most  general  way,  know  the 
condition  of  our  Atlantic  seaboard  in  pre-glacial  time.  We 
do  not  know  how  much  land  has  been  lost  since  man  first 
stood  upon  the  shore,  with  all  America  at  his  back,  and  noth 
ing  but  the  ocean  and  an  unsuspected  continent  before  him. 

The  main  difficulty  that  now  confronts  the  American 
archaeologist  is  that  he  is  several  thousand  years  too  late 
in  making  his  investigations.  Could  he  have  seen  the  dry 
land  of  pre-glacial  days,  or  even  when  this  modest  Delaware 
river,  that  has  now  lost  every  vestige  of  its  former  grandeur, 
was  again  ice-free  in  summer,  after  a  glacial  siege,  the  out 
look  would  be  suggestive  beyond  anything  at  present.  The 
traces  of  early  man  would  doubtless  have  proved  as  abund 
ant  as  they  now  are  rare. 

Dr.  Hrdlicka  may  be  right.  There  may  still  be  reason 
for  continuing  our  labors  in  the  field,  but  so-  insignificant 
is  the  reward  of  years  spent  with  pick  and  shovel  that  often 
we  are  moved  to  throw  down  our  tools  and  cry,  too  late ! 

And  what  a  reception  does  anything  savoring  of  a  discov 
ery  receive! 

My  own  conclusions,  based  wholly  upon  the  results  of 
my  own  explorations,  are  : 

1.  That  man  reached  the  North  American  continent  in 
pre-glacial  time.     How  far  anterior  to  the  ice  age  is  imma 
terial  and  probably  undeterminable. 

2.  That  the  epoch  of  ice  and  continued  cold  drove  him 
southward,  where  he  became  established,  flourished  and  be 
came  racially  differentiated  from  his  European  or  Asiatic 
ancestry. 


83 

3.  That   synchronous   with   the   retirement  towards   the 
Arctic  circle  of  arctic  or  glacial  conditions  the  northern  por 
tion  of  the  continent  was  re-peopled. 

4.  That  the  valley  of  the  Delaware  has  yielded  sufficient 
evidence  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  it  was  occupied  by 
man  representing  three  distinct  stages  of  culture: 

a.  Palaeolithic  man. 

b.  Argillite  man. 

c.  The  historic  Indian. 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

Activity,  human,  beginnings  of,  III.,  13 

Africa,  II.,  3,  7 ;  III,  19, 42 

Aleutian  Islands,   III.,    17 

Algonkin  crania,  III.,  47 

Algonquin,   II.,    5>  33,  35 

Allegewi,  possible  identity  of,  III.,   70 

unknown  origin  of,  III.,    70 

Alleghany  Mountains,  III.,    70 

Alleghanies,  II.,    7 

America,  ancient  man  of,  II.,  78;  III.,  38 

Central,  its  relation  to  continental,  II.,  3 

ruined  cities  of,  III.,   28 

man's  origin  in,  II.,   4,  8 

native  race  of,  II.,   19 

peopling  of,   n;   II.,  3;   III.,    19 

North,  II.,  3,  8,  32 ;  III.,  10,  18, 27 

"         antiquity  of  man  in,  III.,  76 

South,    its    relation    to    continental,    peopling    of,    n; 

II.,  3:  HI,   17 

American  Antiquarian  Society,  III.,   77 

continent,  man's  first  appearance  on,   15 

man,  Asiatic  origin  of,  19 

Museum  of  Nat.  Hist.,  bulletin  of,  quoted,  II., 14 

Naturalist,  periodical,  quoted,  9;  II.,   n 

savage,  III.,   65 

Anglesea,  N.  J.,  III.,  50 

Antilles,  II.,   3 

Arctic  regions,  stone  implements  of,  40 

Argillite  arrowpoints  (in  N.  J. ) ,  42 ;  II., 29 

decomposition  of,    36 

when  used  exclusively,   46 

"        artifacts,  29 ;  III. 54 

boulder,  III.,' 40 

man,  59 ;  III.,   43,  47,  65,  83 

"        outcrop,     35 

(85) 


86 

PAGE 

Arrow-points,  29,  36 ;  II.,  19, 25 

incrustations  on,    37 

Artifact,  argillite,  29 

palaeolithic,     20,24,30 

Artifacts,    15 

stone,    15 

Asia,  II.,  3,  7 

Assunpink  Creek,  N.  J.,  II., 14 

Atlantic  Coast,  II.,  74 

County,  N.  J.,  palaeolithic  implements  found  in,  24;  II.,.  .  50 

seaboard  of  U.  S.  early  man  along,  39;  III,  n,  48 

Atotarho,  II.,   33 

Australia,  marsupials  of,  III.,  42 

B. 

Balch,  Edwin  Swift,  quoted,  III., 26 

B'ear,  black,  III.,  27 

Bear,  polar,  III.,   27 

Beatty,  Charles,  Rev.,  quoted,  II.,  56 

Beauchamp,  W.  M.,  Rev.,  quoted,  II., 32 

Beesley,  Maurice,  Dr.,  quoted,  III.,   51 

Behring's  Straits,  early  migration  at,   n 

Blades,  argillite,  cache  of,  II.,  46 

Boudinot,  Elias,  quoted,  II.,  68 

Brainerd,  John,  Rev.,  quoted,  II.,  65 

Brinton,  D.  G.,  quoted,  20,  II.,  54,  67 ;  III.,  43 

Bristol,  Pennsylvania,  argillite  at,  II.,  28;  III.,  40 

Brooks,  obliterated,   62 

Brugas,   II.,    33 

Burlington  County,  N.  J.,  ancient  cranium  from,  II., 15,  52 

Island,  III.,  38 

Bushman  (African)   art,  III.,   26, 46 

C. 

California,  Southern,  archaeology  of,  II.,  20 

Camel,  III.,  26 

Canassatego,  III.,  18 

Cape  May  County,  N.  J.,  argillite  implements  at,  II.,   45 

"      palaeolithic  implements  at,  24,  37 

Carr,  Lucien,  quoted,  II.,  68 

Catawba,  N.  J.,  arrow-heads  at,  II., 50 

Catlinite,  occurence  as  Indian  relics,  of,  in  N.  J.,  57 ;  II., 72 

of,  as  evidence  of  commerce,  57 


87 

PAGE 

Cedar,  red,  III.,    50 

Ceremonial  objects,  II.,   67 

Chesapeake  Bay,  II.,   56 

Chukches,  spear-points  of,   41 

stone  implements  of,   40 

Coins,  Colonial,  III.,  20 

Colonial  furniture,  III.,   73 

Columbia  gravel,  66 ;  II.,  12 ;  III., 63 

river,  II.,    73 

sands,  III.,   35 

Columbus,  Christopher,  II.,  3,  64 ;  III., 21 

Contradictions,  occurrence  of,  III.,   12 

Cook,  Geo.  H.,  quoted,  III.,   49 

Cooper's  Creek,  N.  J.,  III.,  66 

Copper  spears,  II.,   34 

Crania,  human,  value  of  comparison  of,  50,  III.,  47 

Crosswicks  Creek,  Mercer  County,  N.  J.,  61 

Gushing,  Frank  H.,  quoted,  II., 66 

Cusick,  David,  II.,  33 

D. 

Dall,  W.  H.,  Dr.,  quoted, 42 

Dana,  James  D.,  quoted,  III.,  p 30 

DeCosta,  B.  P.,  quoted,   43 

Deer,  III.,    27 

Delaware  bay,  II.,   57 

Falls  of  the,  67 

Indians,  II.,  5,  24,  72 ;  III.,  47 

II.,  canoes  of,   69 

"     idols  of,    65 

"     relics  of,   35 

"    spear-heads  of,  33 

river,  6,  10,  26,  39;  II.,  43,  51,  63,  69,  72;  III., 22,30,37 

valley  of  the  3,  7,  19,  21,  24,  29;  II.,  4,  7,  9,  15,  20,  24, 
29,  35,  43,  Si,  63,  69,  72;  III.,  9,  14,  21,  30,  43,  47, 
52,  66,  70,  75. 

Water  Gap,  II.,  75 

Drills,  jasper,  II.,    38 

Dutch  settlers,  early,  in  N.  J.,  II.,  75 ;  III.,  66 

E. 

Earth-works,   Indian,   III.,    19 

Easter  Island,  III.,  54 


88 

PAGE 

Elephant,  III.,  I9 

Erratics,   III.,    40, 46 

Eskimantic,    III.,    44 

Eskimo,  III.,   27, 43,  71,  79 

Art,  III.,    26 

crania   of,    33 

Greenland,  life  led  by,  23 

in   Massachusetts,    43 

unlike  "Arctic"  man  in  N.  J.,  44 

Esquimaux,  once  in  N.  J.,  40;  III.,  44 

stone  implements  of,   40 

Ethnology,  Bureau  of,  III., 10,  28 

Europe,  II.,  3,  5,  7 ;  III.,  1 1 

F. 

Fish  spears,  argillite,  II,   37 

Fishing  Creek  shoal,   III.,    52 

Five  Mile  beach,  N.  J.,  III.,   50 

Freshets,  effects  of,  26 

Fur  Trader's  house  on  Burlington  Island,  III., 38 

G. 

Gaddis  Run,  Bucks  Co.,  Pennsylvania,  II 47 

Geologist,  State,  Reports  of,   30 

Geologists,  ludicrous  caution  of,   6,  18 

Germany,  II.,   15 

Glacial  epoch,  31 

"       man,    31, 43 

period,  II.,  30 ;  III.,   6 

Gravel,  ice-transportation  of,    26 

Gravels,  Trenton,  4,  17,  30,  35,  37 ;  II.,  26 ;  III.,  39 

remains  of  man  in,  4 ;  II.,  40 

"        "   mastodon    in,    31 

Great  Egg  Harbor  river,  N.  J.,  II.,  50 

"     Ice  Age,  III.,  40 

H. 

Hatapi,  II.,    35 

Haynes,  H.  W.,  quoted,  II.,  71,  77 

Haeckwelder,  II.,   37 

Heckewelder,  II.,  5,  6;  III.,  66 

Holland,  II.,   15 


89 

PAGE 

Holly,  III.,  50 

Beach,   III.,    50 

Holmes,  W.  H.,  quoted,  18,  27,  30,  50,  57;  II.,  10,  29;  III., 22,25 

Homo  palseolithicus,   III.,    74 

Hrdlicka  Ales,  quoted,  33 ;  II.,  14 ;  III., 64,  76 

Hudson  river,  II.,   56 


I. 

Ilex  opaca,  III.,  50 

Implements,  agricultural,  II.,  71 

caches  of,  II.,   40, 46 

chipped,    25 

condition  of,   25 

gravel  bed,   28 

stone,    15 

"            wooden,  II.,   68 

Indian,  American,  agricultural  implements  of,  II.,  71;  III., 72 

antiquity  of,  52 ;  II.,   25 

origin  of,  II.,  68 

relation  to  Eskimo,  III.,   17 

wooden  implements  of,  II.,  68 

"       Delaware,  culture  status  of,    68 

historic,  7,  10,  33,  37,  39,  44,  51 ;  II.,  38,  50,  63 ;  III., 83 

"        antiquity  of,   II.,    62 

burials,  variation  in,  III.,  56,  59 

horizon,     1 1 

"       legends,    50 

ornaments,  III.,   61 

"       pipes,  III.,   57 

pottery,    III.,    56 

"        Shawnee,    57 

shell-heaps,    59 

"       tools,  II,  22 ;  III., 60 

village.    53 

"       village  sites,   46 

Indians,  American,  Handbook  of,  quoted,  II.,  10, 25 

American,   food  of,   III.,    21 

"        skeletons  of,  III.,   20 

Indies,  West,  1 1 

Inter-tribal  commerce,   57 

Iroquois,  II.,    5,  32,  35 


j. 

PAGE 

Japan,  III.,  17 

Jasper  implements,  36 ;  II.,  19 

pebbles,  II.,    50 

quarries,    II.,    50 

Jesuit  relations,  II.,  5,  33 

Juniperus  Virginianus,  III.,   50 

K. 

Kalm,  Peter,  quoted,  44 ;  II.,  22 

Kelvin,  Lord,  III.,  6 

Keyport,  N.  J.,  shell-heaps  at,  59 ;  III., 49 

Knife,  semi-lunar,  III.,  47 


Lake  Superior,  copper  mines  at,  II., 73 

Lenape  stone,  fraudulent,  51 ;  II.,  24 ;  III., 22 

Lenni  Lenape,  39 ;  II.,  n,  42,  58,  63,  74,  76 ;  III., 68,  74 

Llama,   III.,    26 

Lockwood,  Samuel,  Rev.,  quoted,  31,  59;  II.,  66;  III., 49 

Loderer,  Account  of  North  America,  III., 44 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  mastodon  remains  at, 31 

Loskiel,  II.,    37 

Lower  Black's  Eddy,  II,  56,  60 

Lubbock,  Sir  John  (Lord  Avebury) ,  quoted,  41 

Ludlam,  Charles,  quoted,  III.,  51 

M. 

Maine,    41 

Man,  argillite,  40 

"      origin  of,  in  America,  II.,  4 

"      palaeolithic,  23,  41 ;  III.,  48 

Maryland,    41 

Massachusetts,  coast  of,  Eskimo  on,  43 

Mastodon,  7,  30 ;  II.,  24 ;  III.,  19 

McGee,  Prof.  W  J,  quoted,  III, 54,  80 

Mercer  county,  N.  J.,  II., 52 

H.  C.,  quoted,  34;  II.,  10,43,76 

Mexico,  III.,   28 

Mey,  Cornelius  Jacobse,  III.,  66 


PAGE 

Minnesota,  catlinite  from,  57 ;  II.,   72 

Aborigines  of,  III.,  67,  75 

Minsi,  II.,  74 

Mississippi   river,    73, 74 

Monmouth  County,  N.  J.,  31 

Moose,   7, 32 

Moravian  missionaries,  II.,  6 

Morgan,  Junius  S., 12 

"        Lewis  H.,  quoted, 33 

Mortuary  Customs,  III.,    54 

Mountains,  Blue,  III.,   75 

Musk  ox,  7 ;   III.,    27,  32,  34 

Mussels,  used  for  food,  60 


N. 

Nebraska,  ancient  man  of,   49 

New  Jersey,  23 ;  II.,   63,  72,  75 

"        coastal  plain  of,  III.,   47 

mastodon  remains  in, 31 

"        moose                        "      32 

musk  ox                           32 

"        occurrence  of  seal  in,   33 

"        Pines  of  Southern,    35 

reindeer  remains  in,    32 

sea  coast  of,  III.,  48 

tide- water  regions  of,   38 

"        walrus  remains  in,   32 

New  York,  State  of,  II.,  32 

Nockamixon,  II.,    58 

Nordenskiold,  A.  E.,  quoted,   40 

Norsemen, 36 

North  America,  east  coast  of,   7° 

"       Carolina,  II.,    73 


O. 

Oak,  aged,  III.,  2 

Obelisk,  III.,   53 

Ohio,  mound-building  in,  II.,  72 

Oregon,  obsidian  from,    57 

Orient,  history  of,  III.,  6 

Osborne,  H.  P.,  quoted,  49 ;  III.,  25 


p. 

Palaeolithic  horizon,   II 

in  Europe,  II.,  48 

implements,  25,  29,  34 ;  II.,  82 ;  III., 34 

man,  23,  39,  40 ;  II.,  30;  III., 83 

Panama,  II.,   72 

Peabody  Museum,  palaeolithic  implements  at,  30,  II., 46 

Pebbles,  formation  of,  III., 3 

Peccary,  III.,  26 

Penn,  William,  II.,   71 

Pennsylvania,  II.,  63 

Pepachkhamatunk,  II.,   35 

Periwig  bar,   III., 33 

Pleistokene  Art,  III.,  46 

Man,  III.,   71 

Point  Pleasant,  Bucks  Co.,  Penna,,  35 

"      argillite  quarry  at,  II., 45 

"      pitted  hammers  at,  II., 48 

Pottery,  archaeological  significance  of,  II.,  41 

"        horizon   of,    29 

"        manufacture  of,   54 

Pre-Indian,    11,  36,  39,  40 

Princeton  University,  Museum  of,  12 

Proboscidea,  fate  of,  III.,   20 

Putnam,  F.  W.,  II.,  10;  III., 80 

Pyne,  M.  Taylor,  12;  II.,  16;  III.,  14 

Q. 

Quarryman,  ancient,  II.,    43 

Quartz  implements,  36 ;  II., 19 

Quercian  ancestor  of  oaks,  III., 4 

R. 

Raccoon,  N.  J.,  II.,  22 

Rancocas  Creek,  N.  J.,  III.,  61 

"Rejects,"  Indian,   22 

Russell,  Frank,  Dr.,  quoted,  II.,  1 1 

S. 

Saga,  Eric  Rothens,  III.,  44 

Sagaenbibliothek,  III.,  44 

Sagas,  quoted,  42 


93 

PAGE 

Sandy  Hook,  N.  J,  III., 48 

Seal,  III,  34 

Schoolcraft,  H.  R,  II.,  33 

Seals,  occurrence  of  in  N.  J., 32 

Shackamaxon,  II.,  72 ;   III,   29 

Shawnee  Indians,   57 

pottery  of,    57 

Shell-heaps,  Indian,  antiquity  of,  61,  III, 28 

general  character  of,  60 ;  III,  49 

"Sipitit,"    65 

Skill,  advance  of,   65 

bearing  on  antiquity,  66 

Skralingar,   III 44 

Skr?ellings,    43 

Smith,  Samuel,  quoted,  III 54 

Smithsonian  Institution,  III,  77 

South  Jersey,  II,  38,  46 

"       sands  of,   38 

Spear,  Indian,  II,  31 

Sphynx,  III,    39 

Stacy,  Mahlon,  quoted,  II,  24 

Stone  Age  Industry,  II,   60 

Susquehanna  River,  III., 70 

Swedes,  early,  in  N.  J,  II, 75 

Swedesboro,  N.  J,  II,  22 

Susquehanna  River,   II,    57 

T. 

"Tachquahakan"   (corn  mill),   53 

"Tangamican,"    II,    35 

"Tandanikan,"'  II,   35 

Thoreau,  H.  D,  quoted,  II,  19 

Time,   glacial,    1 1 

Miocene,    31 

"        post,  1 1  ;  II,   29 

pre-glncial,    . 1 1 

"        pre-Indian,  II,   28 

Titeusquand,    II,    70 

Toronto,  Ontario,  II,   30 

Tradition,  Indian,  value  of,  II,   54 

Trenton,  N.  J,  3,  29,  37,  67 ;  II,  13,  25 ;  III, 30 

gravel,  origin  of,   III,    32, 40 

"        gravels,  literature  of,    8 

traces  of  man  in,  4,  17,  30 ;  III, 63 

"  "  "     "    mastodon  in,    13, 35,  37 


94 

PAGS 

"Turtle  backs,"  II.,  60 

Tuscaroras,  traditions  of,  III.,    44 


U. 

Unami,  II.,   74 

Unalachtigo,  II.,    74 

Unionidse    (mussels),    60 

United  States,  Atlantic  seaboard  of,   39 

"        coast  line  of,   31 

"        mid-continental  regions  of,  39 

Pacific  coast  of,   39 

Utah,  obsidian  from,  57 


V. 

Village,  Indian,  53 ;  II,  69 

burials  at,   58 

"       sites,   Indian,    46 

"        absence  of  argillite  at  some, 46 

Volk,  Ernst,  explorations  of, 9,  32,  33,  49,  56,  57,  58,  61,  64,  66; 

II.,  ii,  12;  III.,  32,80 


W. 

Walrus,  7,  32,  42 ;  III., 27,  34,  47 

Walum  Olam,  50,  51 ;  H.,  54,  67 

Wildwood,  N.  J.,  III.,  50 

Winchell,  N.  H.,  quoted,  III., 67,  75 

Wyomink,  II.,  69 


Zeisberger,  II., 33, 37 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


! 


AIAU  T^Cl  lG/l!fl 

'•• 

_JBOBLI3fi£J 

&  —••-•"•'• 

!•»'  '    -  ~—    - 

„ 

Lktr  P  o  (?  1Q7Q 
Itb  *ib  l9/y 

arc.  ciil    NOV  3  1  '£'9 

^AR  2  7  1982 

*.  ''  ~ 

' 

LD  21-100m-7,'40  (6936s) 

234525 


